Well done! I 100% agree with less filler. Most open-world games don't respect player time. By the way, I'm impressed by how well Witcher 2 still looks!
No Filler all Killer! Banishers was a great example of a recent game that was a solid 8 but would actually be better if they cut a decent amount of the filler content.
Yes, filler is really the issue for me as well. Best, recent example: Starfield. I loved the Game, especially for the side questslines with the Terrormorphs, Crimson Fleet and others, but the main Story was just "Go to Planet, do the mini Game at the Temple, return to ship". The Temples on all Planets were exactly the same, so 80% of the main Story was just a big, repetitive fetch quest. No Man's Sky had issues for me as well... essentially it takes hours to gather materials that allow you to go anywhere and do anything. Onl when I discovered the "creative mode" did I actually enjoy the Game, at least a bit. To me the Gold Standard of Open World Games is still Skyrim. I wish the Game was bigger and more diverse (different Biomes instead of all ice and snow) but the exploration was just spot on. The works approach to Open World IMHO is "Dragon Age Inquisition". The whole "establish outpost to unlock the next Zone" just felt like working off a To-Do List for me.
I hate that narrative disconnect when the story requires urgent attention but the player is free to waste time. Dead Rising 1 and 2 solve this by allowing you to freely explore, but punish you with a bad story ending for not starting the missions in time. Great video!
It seems tricky to write an engaging story without that disconnect, so I feel for the writers. But yeah, it does break the immersion a bit. I haven't played Dead Rising yet, maybe I'll pick up the remaster later this year. And thank you :)
It doesn't really bother me, I just kinda view it as putting down a book or pausing a movie. Also, a lot of stories don't really have linear time progression to begin with; one could easily view a game's events not taking place in real time but on different times/dates than gameplay would actually suggest.
Truth. Being a fan of Deus Ex and after playing both Dishonored games this year, I can honestly say that this is the solution. If the game is not like GTA or Fallout, where the open world and the map/exploration are important to the game, just make it semi, hub based, linear, whatever. No need for useless, empty, repetitive and boring open worlds. PS: I think The Evil Within 2 is semi open world from what I know. I have to play it tho.
Immersive sims are so underrated, especially in their world/level design. I've read about The Evil Within 2 as well! Haven't played any of the Evil Within games yet though. Seems like it could be up my alley!
@@GameTalesHQthe first evil within is linear horror survival. It's amazing. I have played it and I liked it a lot. Took a little bit cu get used with controlls, shooting especially, but a great game. Strongly recommend imo. I want a new Deus Ex btw. I miss that series. 😢
@@sterlok2283 Will definitely give it a shot sometime. I think the last Deus Ex didn't sell too well sadly, so it might take a while for the series to get back on track :/
@@GameTalesHQthe first evil within is my favorite horror survival game even ahead of all the Resident evil games I have played the exploration in the second one was rewarding, but I liked the linear design of the first more because it lends itself better to the horror aspect of the game the story is awesome throughout both games, so I really recommend them as well edit: and yep the second is Semi-Open it has linear parts and a few smaller open areas that you return to sometimes where you find some linear side quests and have to explore for weapon parts and stuff as the story goes on you are often locked into linear parts of the game and return to the hubs throughout
My favorite semi-open world example is Hitman. Self-contained levels, each of which is filled with so much detail and so much to explore that they are almost games unto themselves.
I immediately think of the Yakuza series. Small maps that only take about a minute to run across, but they are densely packed with so many activities that it would take you dozens of hours to get 100% completion.
@Megasuperq Lots of people say different things, I tend to play things based on release date. Since Kiwami is a remake of the first game, I thought I'd start there.
@Megasuperq The thing is, 0 is seen as the pinnacle of the series by many and starting with that would maybe put me off the sequels because they're not as good. But yeah, I'll definitely go back and play 0 at some point.
@Megasuperq Yep, that's what I thought; I actually did quite some digging to come to a good approach haha. But I must confess, I dropped Kiwami 1 after a couple of hours. Haven't had the urge to return to it yet.
In all the commentary I've seen about Elden Ring, nobody mentions what I believe is the most important accomplishment it makes in the open world genre... the world map isn't a giant circle or rectangle! Instead, it's a massive crescent. This might sound weird, but the effect this has in allowing for a sense of direction and linearity despite being unbelievably massive can not be overstated, IMO. The crescent layout allows the game to funnel you in the right direction while still allowing freedom of exploration. It's such a simple thing, but really is what massively sets the game apart from any other open world I've seen. EDIT: For the most part, you start at the bottom of the map and work your way in a clockwise path.
I think another thing devs can do to prevent open world fatigue is to simply make smaller maps. Gothic 1 and 2 are the reigning champions of this. The maps are small, but densely packed with content. All of it is hand placed, and there’s little repetition like you’d normally see in bigger open worlds.
Yes, I've only played Gothic 1 but I loved the way that game handled it's open world. It had a really nice flow to it with enemies that basically required you to get stronger to progress. Felt really rewarding.
@@gamingviewpoints3546eh, have to disagree there. Really depends on the quality of the game and the content itself. Not every game needs to be a 100 hour epic. Sometimes less is more. Besides I think a significant factor in open world fatigue has to do with how long many of them are.
Agreed. While I absolutely love Elden Ring and it‘s probably my favorite game, I think I somewhat prefer the DLC over the base game due to its size and content density. The base game had so much to do in every region, don‘t get me wrong. It‘s just my personal impression that there was more „unique“ content which makes shadow of the erdtree even feel like a standalone game
Open World could be great, if they would make: 1. Smaller maps → With more details and more vertical architecture and landscape. Bigger maps almost always lead to a more generic and therefore empty feeling worlds, which feel soulless, have a lack of detail and a lack of immersion. A more detailed world simply feels more believable, looks mostly more beautiful, is more memorable and is easier to navigate. Most bigger maps need to be filled with stuff, but time in production is always limited, which leads to architecture of towns and landscape that is somewhat flat and boring. 2. Smarter progression systems → Do not give the player the possibility to go everywhere in the open world, at the beginning and do not try to lock stuff behind things like give quests levels or worse, level locks. Choose a more natural approach, make areas way too hard to progress, till later in the game, for example with stronger enemies, which look terrifying and strong, but when you progress in game, you can take them, step by step you will explore more of the game world, because you got better skills, better armor, stronger weapons and more knowledge about the games design and world. That feels rewarding and immersive at the same time. 3. Lesser NPCs, but more memorable NPCs → Do not fill your game world with an immense population, it gives your game less immersion than you will think. At first, it sounds like, that more populated towns, cities etc. are more realistic therefore more immersive, that is not true for computer games, fewer people are easier to do for the studio working on the game, and therefore is more time to make the NPCs more realistic and therefore more memorable and unique, which leads to more immersion, not less. Like often in life, quality beats quantity. ----- And very important too: Open worlds can be great for RPGs, and GTA like games, but can be a very wrong choice for other genres, do not make your Hack n Slash Open World, because these games depend on a steady flow, which can not benefit from an open world. And please, do not force RPG systems on Action games like Assassin's Creed, doesn't fit, never will. Do not throw every genre in Open World, just because people like Open Worlds. People like Star Wars, doesn't mean that it will work if you put your Italian mafia story in a galaxy far, far away. The only 2 games I know which really master all of this, are Gothic 1 and 2. Play them, if you didn't already play them, but be warned, they destroyed many other games for me, and there is nothing really comparable out there. And they are old, like over 20 years old.
@@GameTalesHQ Ah, I already did watch your review of Gothic 1, it was the reason I subscribed to your channel. I just sat down after work and clicked this "The Cure For Open World Fatigue" video on my UA-cam Home Site and did not remember, that it was you who made that great Gothic 1 review, so yeah, great Gothic 1 review, I really enjoyed it.
@@volkerputtmann5443 Hahah I had a feeling you might've found me through that video, as your comment here is very in-depth. Gothic fans are so passionate about the game and will find any excuse to talk about it.(as you should)
I've replayed that game like 4 times across its two versions, simply because I love just hanging out in the desert area so much. Nobody's done decaying rusty civilization better than that yet, as far as I know. If the forest area had gotten the same treatment as the other two main maps, it would've been the perfect game.
I also liked the approach in Batman Arkham Asylum , it isn't a large open world but gives one ample space and as u get thr upgrades the areas open up much more
I think ghost of tsushima, rather having a somewhat repetitive side quests, The whole side content IS related to the main quest; Jin has to enslave his people, narrowing mongols controlled areas, Worshiping shrines (a spiritual motivation), taking hot baths... Etc, all helping him to weakening his enemy while taking sometime to rethink his acts & next move, improving the feeling that the side quests are main quest related in non forced way... One of the best experiences I've ever had.
There’s no cure for open world fatigue. If your open world game makes players fatigued thst just means it’s not good enough. Normal games don’t have this issue.
@@ioverslept. it’s nearly impossible to get “tired” of a non open world game because your not constantly holding down the joystick and pressing a button to accelerate. There’s also less repetitive content. Modern open world games seem to constantly struggle between either making a world empty or repetitive and both could result in feeling the same, where if it’s repetitive it becomes empty and if it’s empty it becomes repetitive. I think elden ring is the primary example of this: base game repetitive, dlc empty. Only a select few open world games don’t have this issue like rdr2, minecraft, old school ubisoft games, Skyrim, witcher 3, etc…
@@ioverslept. I’ve never played Skyrim or witcher 3 but both those games have separate issues outside of there repetitiveness and emptiness as to why I haven’t gotten into them. Other examples factually don’t have these issues.
@@Entertainment-ev6ob Witcher 3 has a somewhat shitty open world with it's generic points of interest that are very cookie cutter. The open world was a good idea for the Witcher world at least for making the player feel less constricted but at times it also felt like it was made for people who want to explore aimlessly and that isn't what makes exploration fun in my opinion. Skyrim has a better world but still suffers from quantity over quality and dungeons fall flat in that game as well.
Around the late 2000's/early 2010's I would have been all about the open world. And that's because around that time the genre was probably at its peak, almost every open world game around that time became a classic: GTA 4 and 5, Red Dead Redemption, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, Skyrim, Batman Arkham City. The Ubisoft formula wasn't the standard yet, all of these games had actual meaningful exploration and side content.
Xenoblade 1 had GREAT exploration. There were secret areas to find, hard monsters that inhabited the far corners of the map, rare spawn items. And the great music helped as well.
You should check out Yakuza 0 if you're looking for a densely packed "open-world", some call its map more of an "open-district" and if you ever try it out, you'll see why. There's so much to do (side-activities, random encounters and sidequests, etc.) and it lacks the Ubisoft-type crap that is overwhelming. Also the serious but compelling main story and the hilarious side content weirdly complement each other.
Main quest : Buy Takoyaki Me : *Get pulled into an all-out Barbie dressing, alcohol dash war for 50 hours before getting my line cut by an old hag in a Leopard cloth.
I really like all of the Arkham Games and how they handle open world. It’s because of Asylum and City specifically that I coined the phrase “Open area” games. Which is basically what you’re talking about.
One thing I think tends to get overlooked when talking about open world games is how they can actually make the locations feel smaller than they should be. For example, Night City is an impressively crafted video game city, but the realities of game design and development mean that it's actually tiny compared to any real city. Or the Horizon games, where you can walk from Denver to Eagle Canyon or Las Vegas to Oakland in like 10 minutes. Smaller games that aren't trying to represent such a massive area can more realistically scale the area they do represent. The city of Baldur's Gate feels huge because you only visit portions of it, but the skyboxes and background details make it clear that the area you're in is surrounded by a sprawling city. You may not have as much area to explore, but the verisimilitude of being in a large city is better maintained. The Deus Ex games are similar. Instead of pretending the area you're in is the entirety of Detroit or Prague, the background art makes you feel like you're in just a part of a huge city.
Love this video, especially that you called out specific styles like the hub. I love any game in that style, especially when the hub area has something new to find or do each time you return from one of the spokes with a new ability. A similar style I love, exemplified in early 3D action games like Devil May Cry 1, Devil May Cry 3, and Ninja Gaiden 1, combine the hub with explicit levels that begin and end at certain moments. The level-based design keeps you moving forward on a track, limiting where you can explore and when, and that can help a lot with reducing the fatigue that comes with a game where you have so much to explore that it becomes overwhelming.
Fallout 1 is the best example of how to make a truly open world combined with the urgency of the main quest: the world is open and you can do what you want, but you don't have too much distractions. Everything always reminds you of your main quest, which makes the exploration of the open world very interesting and intense. You always have the thought at the back of your head: "what if this is the wrong way and I'm just wasting my time?" So, the way I see it, if you have an open world, you either A) make a main quest that is NOT urgent and you have time to explore the surrounding world, or B) If your main quest is urgent, the open world cannot have too much distractions and side quests and everything has to be connected to the main quest. That's one thing what bugged me about Fallout 2: you are given the urgency of the main quest, but already in the first town you encounter, you are bombarded with so many side quests that you immediately lose track of the main quest. It's not bad per se, but I does water down the idea of the main quest.
I like that aspect of Fallout 2, in that the main quest isn't that important for enjoying the game. All the sidequests are what make up the game. It's true for almost the entire series.
Man, while I am a big fan of longform analysis, it is good to watch some high quality, straight-to-the-point content. Hope your channel grow to great heights!
Nice video. Story over volume is always a good choice. The older bioware rpg's really had me tied to the screen (Dragon Age, Neverwinter nights 1, BG.)
I think the most obvious answer from a design perspective is to fill the world with meaningful content, but you can also focus the world around a fast placed movement system. The most recent Spiderman games make good use of their world because flying around like Spiderman feels so great.
something i really love in recent years is the rise of semi-open worlds where the story is structured around acts that progress the world and fill it in with various more things to return to, my first recent example would be ghost of tsushima
The original Gothic series (and its spiritual successors, Risen, and Archolos) solves the issues of open world really nicely too, although I'm not sure where to categorize it. What is also nice, that there is no rush, no ticking time bomb which miraculously stops ticking while you do side-quests. The game is sort of open world, but there are many areas unavailable until you progress the main story enough.
i personally believe the best open world implementation is that of zelda botw/totk. There isn't anything stopping you from exploring, except for the part that the further you go, the more dangerous it gets. This incentivizes the player to slow down, and choose what general region of the map you go to next, and it's freaking awesome.
Great video, Metro Exodus was an absolute masterpiece imo, it combines several open-world levels with linear ones and it works really well. After you finish a big open world one, you get kind of a break and enjoy a more linear level which then leaves you craving more of that immersive gameplay.
Great video! I've noticed that some of the later Assassin's Creed games (notably Odyssey and Valhalla) have taken more of a hub/chapter approach to open-worlds. While you can technically explore everywhere, it encourages you to move to a certain area and do a collection of missions in that area, before returning to your hub and selecting the next area. Makes it feel more manageable.
I like maps large enough to give a certain amount of choice but small enough that you are not spending all your time traveling from spot to spot that does not interact with the story or your mission. The original Balders Gate games did this well a long time ago and gave one the option to avoid the big boss in an area until later when you had built up your party to be more powerful in other maps within the game. Sometimes the hardest part was remembering exactly where something was that you needed to revisit even with the smaller map sizes.
I would probably add Elden Ring map as well. With the exception of Caelid, each area/zone has a gated "front door" and a "back door." And each back door gets more difficult or elaborate (spoiler) like the 1st back door you just walk around a castle, yhe 2nd you climb up a dungeon, the 3rd you participate in a festival, go through an underground dungeon, fight another boss, enter a coffin, go thru another underground section and finally gets teleported into the next zone. The only way to enter these zones is eather "unlock" the gate via a literal key or a dungeon/boss at the "gates front door" or find the "back door" which gets harder with each consecutive zone. It has that linear design with thr freedom of open world.
One of my favourite open-world games is actually Assassin's Creed Odyssey. Obviously it has all the elements of the "Ubisoft design" in it, but I found the overall package very satisfying and, most importantly, it made sense narratively for it to be open-world. The conspiracy that you have to uncover promotes free-roaming exploration. I remember exploring a random cave and stumbling on one of the targets totally by accident! And all the side-content felt like it contributed to meaningful progression. Attacking forts or outposts would not only improve the war score (often necessary to expose a conspirator) but you would pick up resources, loot, and even crew members. This leveled you up, and made you more capable of taking on tougher tasks, which in turn lead to better loot and rewards. It might be a bit cyclical, but it all felt very natural, well-paced, and rewarding. The mercenary system was also a great feature and one I was sad to see not implemented in the follow up. All in all, it was one of the best examples of an open-world game taking advantage of being open-world.
I totally get what you mean. I recently started Dark souls 1, thinking that it was a relatively linear open world game and most people would get through it in a reasonable time. (Which is mostly true) Now I‘m already 60 hours in, but without the fatigue and overwhelmingness I feel when I usually play open world games, which market themselves by being so open ended and big. DS 1 showed me that you don‘t need a big promising open world to still get that sense of sprawling largeness within a game‘s world.
You forgot Pentiment, it's a chapter based zones, semi-open world and linear + open environments. You can talk to every npc in the game and you can decide on what is the background of your character. The story in the game is full of mystery and it is quite intriguing to see what happens on every chapter.
Well said. I also think the future would be brightest with more semi-open worlds. Gives the benefit of exploration without redundancy. A lot of the best games ever seem to ride that fine line
Thanks for bringing up, the disconnect between urgent main quests and open worlds. Also, in most open worlds, traveling and the distance between points of interest feels most often just like "filler" (contrary to say, Dark Souls1 where "mastering" the environment feels as important as learning the bosses moves). Other games where traveling/exploration actually felt meaningful was Outward and Death Stranding, (the latter got me hocked, when I realized you could "terraform" the landscape a little to your liking).
as the OpenWorldAddict, my favorite open world games are actually metroidvania style games (whether 2-d or 3-d), cause they start you off with either a small area or a linear area that is too much to overwhelm you, but as you unlock new stuff and new abilities, you slowly unlock more of the world to explore. I think that is the cure for open world fatigue. It could called metroidvania or slowly expanding or unfolding open world. One thing i love about these style of games is that you can really develop a lot of familiarity with one specific area before starting to explore and wander around other areas.
Yes, I love those. I didn't want to classify any games on my list as a metroidvania though because people can never agree on what counts as one or not. I'd say Pokemon and Dark Souls borrow alot from that genre, although they don't fit the description perfectly.
@@GameTalesHQ Just to note, Dark Souls isn't really a metroidvania style games cause even though the world of Dark Souls is interconnect and you unlock further connectiveness as you progress, you are allowed to choose any direction you want to go from Firelink, with only bar to progression is enemy level and thus difficulty, but still i am aware that a very skilled Dark Souls player could go in those directions early on in the game.
@@GameTalesHQ Yeah, they don't fit that genre at all, but I see what you mean. Metroidvanias are full of platforming, and you can't even jump in Pokémon and Dark Souls. Well, you can do a sprint jump in Dark Souls, but you know what I mean.
I often glaze naughty dogs but I loved in TLOU 2 how open Seattle felt in some sections. It felt so much more immersive and impressive than the linear levels in TLOU 1
Honestly Ubisoft is the first company that comes in mind when it comes to empty open world games. Ex-employee from Ubisoft said he felt like a factory worker, doing the same thing every year
people often complain about empty open-world, but I think they can work if they are big and if they are made for travel. It's hard to explain, but I enjoy simply going through the open world in DayZ with friends. It feels like you are on a forever road-trip and you sort of are, there are zero activities outside the ones you create for yourself and it's a lot of fun.
Everything is better with friends! But yeah, there are certainly games that pull it off nicely. But there are also a lot of them that feel empty and soulless.
@@GameTalesHQ a player can fill an empty world with their creativity, you can't do that with a Ubisoft world, because it's already an ADHD nightmare on drugs ... Jokes aside, great video! You didn't show it here, but I think Outer Wilds has a great open-world, it was a lot of fun to explore. Not to be confused with Outer WORLDS which is an Obsidian RPG.
@@NoName-ym5zj haha thanks! My friend gave me Outer Wilds as a gift and I just played an hour of it, it's a really fresh take on an open world for sure!
Open world games need to make the act of exploring interesting in itself. One thing the Ubi-towers fail at is that they point to everywhere you can go, rather than letting you explore on your own. It's one area that Fallout 3 did better than NV. If you always go to places because you have quests pointing in their general direction (like NV) or directly to them (Ubi-towers), you lack the independent explorer aspect.
Star Wars Jedi fallen order fits somewhere in this list imo along with Jedi survivor. I think survivor leaned too much in the open world direction and the overall pacing of the game was negatively impacted because of that. They’re both 9/10 games for me but the more linear approach in the first game was more enjoyable.
The thing I love about these games is traveling around the world and have memories of quests/missions tied to places that you can visit later- spider man ps4 was really cool there- „oh, that’s where I fought the kingpin!- or - hey that’s where I I fought electro!“
GTA V singleplayer's open world was done amazingly I think. It was always fully open, but until you unlocked Trevor all the missions were in Los Santos and never stretched out to Blaine County. The curious player could still explore over there if they wished, but there wasn't much merit so they usually stayed in this bubble. The growth of this bubble the player finds themselves in is at an extremely satisfying pace. Going from the suburb of Strawberry, to Rockford Hills, Vespucci Beach, the entirety of Los Santos, and then coming out of that bubble and making a new one in Sandy Shores. It's only very far into the game that you see Franklin even venturing out of Los Santos on a mission for the first time.
I absolutely love these kind of games which combine open and potentially interconnected areas with linear levels. Metro Exodus is one of my favorite games and the Tomb Raider 2013 to 2018 trilogy is also excellent. Oh yeah and almost forgot the Jedi Fallen Order and Jedi Survivor. Both are incredible games.
I agree with you that busy work can become “boring” and “repetitive” but I also feel it adds to the overall world if done correctly. Two examples come to mind: 1- Adds to narrative, or wants to compel a feeling to the player, e.g. Haikus in Ghost of Tsushima. 2- Camps done right, what I mean by this is multiple unique camps that allow the player to engage with them how they like, which in turns makes each camp a mini sandbox. Ghost of Tsushima does this good, so does Far Cry 3 and 4, and I feel Kingdom Come Deliverance does too. Yes filler can become repetitive, but I think it’s the player’s responsibility to do filler content in chunks, not all at once. Camp clearing in KCD is really fun due to the game mechanics (combat system) and because you can approach each camp differently. Camps have enemies with different armor and weapons which can become challenging at times, and sometimes if you are going stealth a barking dog will break your cover. They are all “filler” content, but they fit in the narrative (bandits terrorizing local town, get rid of them) and are all unique encounters.
Over time, I've come to appreciate open area (that's what I call 'em) games over open world games. These areas, while small, still provide a sense of exploration and discovery while not overstaying their welcome.
I think it came from Ubisoft primarily going look at how impressive our game is, and how much stuff you can do, and it never ends and blah blah. Whereas, I think most people just want a game that stands out to them with a good story, good gameplay, and replayability. People always get caught up in marketable buzz words like immersive, and then it just becomes so overdone that it's not good anymore. Too much of something that's the same is never good.
I remember for years when I wouldnt understand when people said the size is overwhelming then I started playing games like baldurs and deus ex where you get the freedom like a open world game but you get this feeling of wanting to explore everything in your small map/zone your in before you progress to the next
Hub and spoke are ny favourite - I love when there's Metroidvania aspects where you can explore more as you get more abilities. Prey and Borderlands 2 are my favourite games of all time.
The total conversion mod „Archolos“ for gothic 2 had the outcome of the main story be changed significantly if you spend to much time on side quest instead of following the main story. Great concept. VR exclusive „Asgards Wrath 2“ did handle semi open world extremly well as well I also really liked Assassins Creed Nexus, best AC game imo. It has all the fun AC gameplay but removed all the bloat inbetween by having set smaller worlds and putting you right in these instead of requiring you to travel from interesting points for many minutes yourself
Gothic 2 is also on my 'to play' list, lot's of people have recommended it to me! I don't have a VR headset, so I gotta pass on Asgards Wrath 2, maybe in a couple of years. I had never heard of Nexus, looks really interesting! Although VR again, I'll keep these in mind if I ever buy a headset for myself. Thanks for the recommendations :)
@@GameTalesHQ gothic 2 (with addon) is really great but prepare yourself, its also pretty hard lol I would suggest playing G2 NotR first but really dont sleept on „Archolos“. Its a free mod and has insanely good quality, many prefer it even over the main games. Tells a whole new story with new map. As for Vr, one of the cool things about it is that developers are trying all kind of new things with it. No ubisoft formular yet developed for Vr lol. Well and actually beeing in those worlds yourself and actually wielding your gun or sword just never gets old lol
Your points are very good and it is very understandable, but i want to add one more type and that is destructive open world environment. In this type players not only just explore the world but they can destroy anything they want to cure their tiredness. Some of the best example are- 1. Mercenaries series 2. Just Cause series 3. Transformers the movie game(First Part) 4. Hulk games, etc.
I think the main problem with open world design is scale. Studios create these massive open worlds with what feels like nothing in them, if instead they decreased the scale and therefore increased the density, much of the problem would fade. Then there's the second problem of repetitive content, because it's not feasible to fill in an entire massive open world with unique content, it'd take too much time and money. I'll always hark back to Skyrim when talking about how to do an open world right, that game had stuff shoved away everywhere, so much so that many people never even completed the main quest because they got too sidetracked by things they ran across. The only problem that Skyrim had in regards to open world design was that too many dungeons used the same enemies and design, even if almost all of them offered something unique or interesting.
Then there's the Witcher 3, which is the best example of how to do open world curated content right. The game may not have stuff around every corner like Skyrim, but it does have a massive amount of interesting and curated content, most notably the monster hunts. Another thing that helped this game was knowing that you were expected to frequent villages for quests instead of just wandering around actually looking for something, people hate on quest markers and what not, but tbh it cuts down on needless tedium which is needed in an open world. The Witcher 3 IMO is the single best open world RPG ever created and it is not even close, I really wish more games took inspiration from it's open world content systems. I find semi open worlds are the best middle ground for curated content if you cannot reign in your ambitions to a reasonable scope, I feel Elden ring would of massively benefited from a semi open world instead of a full open world as it's open world is just honestly too big and the best parts of that game are the Legacy Dungeons anyways. They could of still had their awe inspiring backdrops without such massive area's if they simply did a semi open world. There's also multiple ways you could do a semi open world, You could have multiple heavily story focused area's with smaller open world area's connecting them. You could have multiple areas you could travel to that are wildly different with unique backdrops filled with curated content, like The Outer Worlds and Witcher 2. You could have an open world that has sections blocked off and are unlocked in a certain order, like GTA San Andreas. And so on. Also to note, because open world game often just massively inflate game time. I'd also much rather a game that is replayable, compared to a game that's so long I move onto something else from boredom. One of my favorite games is Wrath of The Righteous, but that game is far, far too long for the massive amount of replayability it has. I'd of much preferred if a game like that was 40 hours long instead of 100+ so I could go back through with different build and make different choices more.
Semi open worlds are my favorite games ever. I just get too overwhelmed with too large worlds, and usually most games force you to grind in different areas around the world to get more xp or the like, hence forcing you to explore the world but it becomes a chore, eventually (I don't hate all open worlds, though, I love RDR 1 and 2). I prefer games that give you just enough exploration to find interesting things and then let you swiftly return to where you left off in the main story. Fluent pacing without overdoing linearity nor openness, a perfect balance to give some freedom while still focusing on a wonderful narrative. It is a big reason why the Mass Effect trilogy is my favorite game series of all time.
Since the majority of titles released now are either open world or open world rpgs, my way of combating the fatigue of this is to play a non-open world title after finishing: like open world-non-open world-open world-non-open world. Usually survival horror, first person shooter, third person shooter, or story based game (choose your own adventure, walking sim) as long as it's a linear experience. It also helps to go back and fourth between older and newer titles. Like last month I played through Mass Effect 1 and the Resident Evil 4 Remake. Guaranteed that's a big enough difference to feel different enough. I also work a lot so I suppose by the time I get home I'm usually in the mood for gaming regardless of genre. I can sympathize though if the majority of a person's gaming collection are almost all open world titles. May also help to vary up the genre.
Would definitely 100% recommend the Metro series. One of the most immersive series without adding too much stuff like having to eat and sleep. Also gotta love CDPR ❤️
10seconds into the video, still about to watch the video. If you want to see open world done right try Gothic 1 or 2 or the mod relased like 4 years ago "Chronicles of Myrtana". Those are the best games out there as far as open world design goes.
This reminds me of a video by Iron Pineapple where he described dark souls games has a 3-D Metroidvania. I liked the idea because while metroidvanias in a sense are still open world games, the differing design philosophies seem like they would make for smaller, more intense/detailed environments.
@@hamstergaming1792 Lol, which game? Sekiro? DS2? DS3? Elden Ring? LMAO DS1 is the only game with similar level design and it's still inferior to Survivor due to it's limited traversal. The only souls-like game with comparable level design is the Surge 1 and 2
For me was the opposite, I start Elden Ring exploration really excited but after some time I get really burnout. I played ER in 2022 until Leyndell with a lot of exploration then got tired and didnt finish the main story Now with the DLC I started a new game and made a build that I knew where to find some of the items and had way more fun
I've loved every soulsborne game but I'm struggling to get into Elden ring. It just feels overwhelmingly big. I've opened up so much of the map, underground section with Siofra etc. I start each session now with a feeling of "so what now?" and just end up wandering around. Other souls games had more of a focused direction and that kept me going. I'm also married with kids now and just don't have the gaming time I used to.
@@keithprice1950 There's no shame in looking stuff up specially in a game so densely packed and massive as Elden Ring. I made it through most of my first playthrough looking up tutorials to get to certain places.
Playing FF7 Rebirth currently. It’s a very neat split between linear adventure and modern open world style, switching back and forth between them as you progress. Each open world section is a new region with a distinct feel. I’m still not a fan of the “busywork laundry list” style of open world that it uses for those sections, but the general ebb and flow between the two modes is nice. It avoids the feeling of wading around in an indistinct mush of gameplay that that kind of game so often fall into. It also makes the story much more engaging when it leads you to new locations that you couldn’t just wander to, as opposed to the story being a sort of scavenger hunt around an open world.
I hadn't thought about it before, but Mankind Divided really was a departure from the previous Deus Ex games in that aspect. The earlier titles were definitely chapter-based, but MD is a hub and spoke design as you said. I hope hope hope Eidos Montreal eventually returns to working on the series. Maybe they could try a version that is more like connected zones.
My favourite type of open world is where the game is centered around your vehicle-hub: Barotrauma, Sea of Thieves, Worlds Adrift. This approach splits the game in two distinct games: Travel+Management (inside the vehicle, repair, fueling, adjusting sails or engines) / Action+Exploration (on foot, combat, looting, doing quests). These two play into one another, since whenever you steer your ship towards new point of interest you're eager to enter the on-foot phase, but when you arrive, loot new parts, do quests etc. - you're having more and more desire to return to your ship and sail. The pacing is also great with player seemlessly jumping between two genres, preventing easy boredom. This can be classified into the "Hub worlds", but the seemless transition between the two makes it very different to me. Some games like Subnautica, Metro: Exodus, FAR: Lone Sails do this type of gameplay, but they're still centered around classic game structures, not leaning heavily into this concept.
Dark souls 1 has the Best map design propably EVER. I just love everything about Firelink shrine, the Interconnectivity, the shortcuts and elevators, Sens Fortress, the NPCs appearing and disappearing from the main Hub. Its so so well design and wrap together. I was hooked on that game back in 2011 when I first time discovered a shortcut to Firelink shrine with an elevator. It just clicked for me and it became my favorite game ever from that point onwards. Semi-Open Interconnected Worlds have the must fun Exploring and the highest replayability
Dark Souls 1 is a very special game. Hopefully Fromsoft will return to that type of world design. I feel they never hit the same heights again as they did with Dark Souls 1. Bloodborne came close, but that game was more linear. Highly agree with ya!
Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice also rewards exploration really well because if you go out of your way, you can actually find power-ups and loot that helps a whole lot with the main quest.
The Witcher 2 and Metro Exodus are perfect examples here. They offer big areas to explore, and there really is stuff to explore not just collectables or some loot to gather. But it always feels like youre in the vicinity of the main plot, both location/game world wise and story/immersion wise
I think another way to design FULL open world games, or at least play them in a way that brings back the magic, is to go where your curiosity drives you. See a landmark, head that way and see what's going on there. Curious about a forest, head into it and explore it. Thought you noticed something and want to change your route to venture in a new direction, why not? When I was playing Forza Horizon 4, going from event to event, as the game instructed, made the open world feel like an inconvenience or background noise. But then I thought "screw the mission", and just drove in a direction I felt like. Through the fields, down a stream, high up a steep hill, around towns, all as if the roads never existed. Open World was fun and had a purpose now. This is how I played Fallout 4, where instead of following the objectives or quests it guided me to do, I just let my curiosity and wonder take the wheel. It was so much fun! It's also how I play Starfield. So far, I can't say the story in Starfield is any good, which I expected honestly. But when I landed on my first planet, did the outpost, and it told me to go back to my ship, I decided "Why not venture out and enjoy the sights?", and I ended up coming across a fight between factions with a large ship, killed everyone, and I suddenly got my own massive second ship in the tutorial planet! And when I got to New Atlantis, I ignored my objective of meeting the group I came to see, and talked to people in shops and stuff, and ended up exploring a BUNCH of the city and meeting tons of people. It's moments like these, and the combat, that bring back the Fallout 4 fun I had before. And it's my curiosity and adventuring that made open world games feel new again.
Yes, I think a big part of it is the over reliance on quest markers and hud info. You're basically walking/driving around a big menu screen, going from mission to mission. Turning of the hud and just going on adventure can be tons of fun in these types of games!
I absolutely agree. I think there's too much of a focus on the main quest and having that be driving, but player curiosity and independent exploration is what makes me play open world games. Haven't gotten to Starfield yet, but it on the list after BG3 (which I'm 3/4 through).
I always said that HUB-Worlds like the Tomb Raider trilogy, Dragon Age + Mass Effect where in Dragon Age 3 Inquisition there are big maps ..... but they are not that big except of 2 (Hinterlands and the hissing sands).
This is one of the reasons why Bioshock, or to use an earlier example, Ratchet and Clank, worked so well. The environments were fairly small but so chocked full of detail and storytelling that they all felt bigger than they were.
There's a game that came out during CvD a few years ago called "Book of Travels" they wanted to innovate the MMO into a TMO (Tiny Multiplayer Online). I would say it is like a hub and spoke model meets a chapter based zones. Only the chapter based zones are more like they are still building the world and opening it up in sections called chapters. They made each area small but it each area is unique and detailed. The narrative and quests are more found by talking with NPC's in town and following the rumors you hear from various NPC's you encounter. It's rare that you will be told "Go here and do this." It's more like: "We're going to be so rich! We gotta get to the pass before our hideout is found" "Shut you you idiot! Do you want someone to hear you!?" That's how you hear about quests and places to go explore. It's very well made. It's still in early access and they keep updating it but it's a very pleasant experience. I highly recommend. You can find "Book of Travel's on Steam. Trailer: ua-cam.com/video/4nDrqkvumhg/v-deo.html
Either an excellent open-world (Witcher 3, Red Dead Redemption 2, GTA V, Fallout New Vegas, Mad Max), either an excellent semi-open world or big levels style (Metro Exodus, STALKER Call of Prypiat, Hitman, Sniper Elite 4, Dishonored, Deus Ex, Prey...), there can be no compromise.
Four things that can make an open-world game great are physics, weather, and event encounters. Red Dead excels in these areas, which is why it has such high replay value-many people even hop into the game just to wander around. Imagine Assassin's Creed with a weather system and ragdoll physics. You could perform an assassination on a rainy day or during snowfall, making the experience feel very immersive. Or take The Witcher with a random encounter system-you wouldn’t have to go looking for side quests; instead, while you're exploring the world, the side quests would come to you. The reason I get absorbed into a game’s world is when that world actively interacts with us, not just us interacting with it. For example, even though GTA has a large map, it feels very lifeless because it’s only us interacting with the world. And the final point is the graphics. Oh, I forgot-we also have the Nemesis system from Middle-Earth, which is fantastic
Great video. As I've gotten older, I've had less and less time for games. Open worlds with 100 hours of content just aren't in my wheelhouse anymore. I appreciate more linear yet open style games. I think Diablo 4 could have been a good addition to this list.
I think the interconnected style is my favourite. Definitely agree that most open world games just get a bit bland over time which means I rarely finish them. Bloodborne was the first one I played of that style and I just thought it was so cool when I eventually realised that
I always loved hub worlds like Deus Ex and Dishonored. Open world games never did it for me until Elden Ring. The whole map feels like it is one big dungeon with more intricate built dungeons inside of it.
Good video, if you're interested I would like to give you a few tips on your English pronunciation, being a Dutchy myself. You are super close to perfect pronunciation. All you really need to do is shake some of the hard f's, t's and s's that we use in Dutch all the time. Smooth those out and your English will be *chef's kiss*.
5:26 Big fan of this type, Stalker and Ds1 are longtime favourites of mine. Another one I think of regarding this type would be the Survival mode for "The Long Dark". Probably my favourite singleplayer survival game.
@@GameTalesHQ Definitely worth a go. Although, the game heavily relies on you being able to set your own goals. I recommend "Voyager" or "Stalker" difficulty until you learn the map. Avoid Bleak Inlet and Blackrock at first.
Excellent video. I love open world games, and I don't really mind if they're small or big. I also love the exploration aspect, but it must not come at the cost of making you tired of moving around to find nothing but air. Open world games should always be packed with a variety of stuff to do. Surely, it requires a lot of work from the devs. Then again, I personally wouldn't mind paying extra for, say, more mission packs and other content that really expand the universe of the game, rather than paying for skins and other "boosters" that don't really help with the gameplay, and by keeping the game alive longer (unless mods are introduced).
U can say the same thing with "immersion" about the main quest being a need to immediately done. But at the same time when a game acts like a game for having side quests it gonna get criticized for breaking immersion.
Dead Island 2 isn't perfect but I love the zones. The amount of detail and interiors you can enter is pretty crazy. It might have the best lighting of any game I have ever played, some areas look photorealistic. If it was a huge world, there is no way they could render all that.
Well done! I 100% agree with less filler. Most open-world games don't respect player time. By the way, I'm impressed by how well Witcher 2 still looks!
Thanks! Filler is the worst...
And yeah, The Witcher 2 was a PC killer back in the day. It's still a really pretty game today!
@@GameTalesHQ I remember used to go black after 30 mins of playing and not turn on for 10-15 minutes. Fun times. Still completed the game =)
No Filler all Killer! Banishers was a great example of a recent game that was a solid 8 but would actually be better if they cut a decent amount of the filler content.
Don't play FF XVI then. It has the most braindead filler quests you could ever imagine, although it actually has a semi open world.
Yes, filler is really the issue for me as well. Best, recent example: Starfield. I loved the Game, especially for the side questslines with the Terrormorphs, Crimson Fleet and others, but the main Story was just "Go to Planet, do the mini Game at the Temple, return to ship". The Temples on all Planets were exactly the same, so 80% of the main Story was just a big, repetitive fetch quest.
No Man's Sky had issues for me as well... essentially it takes hours to gather materials that allow you to go anywhere and do anything. Onl when I discovered the "creative mode" did I actually enjoy the Game, at least a bit.
To me the Gold Standard of Open World Games is still Skyrim. I wish the Game was bigger and more diverse (different Biomes instead of all ice and snow) but the exploration was just spot on.
The works approach to Open World IMHO is "Dragon Age Inquisition". The whole "establish outpost to unlock the next Zone" just felt like working off a To-Do List for me.
I hate that narrative disconnect when the story requires urgent attention but the player is free to waste time. Dead Rising 1 and 2 solve this by allowing you to freely explore, but punish you with a bad story ending for not starting the missions in time.
Great video!
It seems tricky to write an engaging story without that disconnect, so I feel for the writers. But yeah, it does break the immersion a bit. I haven't played Dead Rising yet, maybe I'll pick up the remaster later this year.
And thank you :)
Play gothic 2 total conversion mod „Archolos“ if you feel that way. I dont wanna spoil to much but it fixed exactly that
How about a game of Gwent ?
I'm not a fan of this idea, because you get punished for exploring.
It doesn't really bother me, I just kinda view it as putting down a book or pausing a movie. Also, a lot of stories don't really have linear time progression to begin with; one could easily view a game's events not taking place in real time but on different times/dates than gameplay would actually suggest.
Truth. Being a fan of Deus Ex and after playing both Dishonored games this year, I can honestly say that this is the solution. If the game is not like GTA or Fallout, where the open world and the map/exploration are important to the game, just make it semi, hub based, linear, whatever. No need for useless, empty, repetitive and boring open worlds.
PS: I think The Evil Within 2 is semi open world from what I know. I have to play it tho.
Immersive sims are so underrated, especially in their world/level design. I've read about The Evil Within 2 as well! Haven't played any of the Evil Within games yet though. Seems like it could be up my alley!
@@GameTalesHQthe first evil within is linear horror survival. It's amazing. I have played it and I liked it a lot. Took a little bit cu get used with controlls, shooting especially, but a great game. Strongly recommend imo.
I want a new Deus Ex btw. I miss that series. 😢
@@sterlok2283 Will definitely give it a shot sometime.
I think the last Deus Ex didn't sell too well sadly, so it might take a while for the series to get back on track :/
@@GameTalesHQyeah. And the problem with embracer group. There was a sequel to MD worked on, but it was cancelled from what I've read.
@@GameTalesHQthe first evil within is my favorite horror survival game even ahead of all the Resident evil games I have played
the exploration in the second one was rewarding, but I liked the linear design of the first more because it lends itself better to the horror aspect of the game
the story is awesome throughout both games, so I really recommend them as well
edit: and yep the second is Semi-Open
it has linear parts and a few smaller open areas that you return to sometimes where you find some linear side quests and have to explore for weapon parts and stuff
as the story goes on you are often locked into linear parts of the game and return to the hubs throughout
My favorite semi-open world example is Hitman. Self-contained levels, each of which is filled with so much detail and so much to explore that they are almost games unto themselves.
@@Renkinjutsushi I love the Hitman levels, I'd describe them as sandboxes. Awesome games!
I immediately think of the Yakuza series. Small maps that only take about a minute to run across, but they are densely packed with so many activities that it would take you dozens of hours to get 100% completion.
Since it's been recommended so much, I've just started playing Yakuza Kiwami. I'm only an hour in but already loving the dense world!
@Megasuperq Lots of people say different things, I tend to play things based on release date. Since Kiwami is a remake of the first game, I thought I'd start there.
@Megasuperq The thing is, 0 is seen as the pinnacle of the series by many and starting with that would maybe put me off the sequels because they're not as good. But yeah, I'll definitely go back and play 0 at some point.
@Megasuperq Yep, that's what I thought; I actually did quite some digging to come to a good approach haha. But I must confess, I dropped Kiwami 1 after a couple of hours. Haven't had the urge to return to it yet.
@@GameTalesHQ The middle games really suffer for not being remade.
In all the commentary I've seen about Elden Ring, nobody mentions what I believe is the most important accomplishment it makes in the open world genre... the world map isn't a giant circle or rectangle!
Instead, it's a massive crescent. This might sound weird, but the effect this has in allowing for a sense of direction and linearity despite being unbelievably massive can not be overstated, IMO.
The crescent layout allows the game to funnel you in the right direction while still allowing freedom of exploration. It's such a simple thing, but really is what massively sets the game apart from any other open world I've seen.
EDIT: For the most part, you start at the bottom of the map and work your way in a clockwise path.
That's interesting! It does give you a sense of direction instead of overwhelming the player with 360 degrees of options.
It Is ironic since the game Is called elden ring
I think another thing devs can do to prevent open world fatigue is to simply make smaller maps.
Gothic 1 and 2 are the reigning champions of this. The maps are small, but densely packed with content. All of it is hand placed, and there’s little repetition like you’d normally see in bigger open worlds.
Yes, I've only played Gothic 1 but I loved the way that game handled it's open world. It had a really nice flow to it with enemies that basically required you to get stronger to progress. Felt really rewarding.
However, a huge map with packed content is much better than a small map with packed content.
@@gamingviewpoints3546eh, have to disagree there. Really depends on the quality of the game and the content itself. Not every game needs to be a 100 hour epic. Sometimes less is more.
Besides I think a significant factor in open world fatigue has to do with how long many of them are.
Agreed. While I absolutely love Elden Ring and it‘s probably my favorite game, I think I somewhat prefer the DLC over the base game due to its size and content density. The base game had so much to do in every region, don‘t get me wrong. It‘s just my personal impression that there was more „unique“ content which makes shadow of the erdtree even feel like a standalone game
Still managed to have a ton of backtracking, especially before you got the TP runes. Other than that, it was perfect
Open World could be great, if they would make:
1. Smaller maps → With more details and more vertical architecture and landscape. Bigger maps almost always lead to a more generic and therefore empty feeling worlds, which feel soulless, have a lack of detail and a lack of immersion. A more detailed world simply feels more believable, looks mostly more beautiful, is more memorable and is easier to navigate. Most bigger maps need to be filled with stuff, but time in production is always limited, which leads to architecture of towns and landscape that is somewhat flat and boring.
2. Smarter progression systems → Do not give the player the possibility to go everywhere in the open world, at the beginning and do not try to lock stuff behind things like give quests levels or worse, level locks. Choose a more natural approach, make areas way too hard to progress, till later in the game, for example with stronger enemies, which look terrifying and strong, but when you progress in game, you can take them, step by step you will explore more of the game world, because you got better skills, better armor, stronger weapons and more knowledge about the games design and world. That feels rewarding and immersive at the same time.
3. Lesser NPCs, but more memorable NPCs → Do not fill your game world with an immense population, it gives your game less immersion than you will think. At first, it sounds like, that more populated towns, cities etc. are more realistic therefore more immersive, that is not true for computer games, fewer people are easier to do for the studio working on the game, and therefore is more time to make the NPCs more realistic and therefore more memorable and unique, which leads to more immersion, not less. Like often in life, quality beats quantity.
-----
And very important too: Open worlds can be great for RPGs, and GTA like games, but can be a very wrong choice for other genres, do not make your Hack n Slash Open World, because these games depend on a steady flow, which can not benefit from an open world. And please, do not force RPG systems on Action games like Assassin's Creed, doesn't fit, never will. Do not throw every genre in Open World, just because people like Open Worlds. People like Star Wars, doesn't mean that it will work if you put your Italian mafia story in a galaxy far, far away.
The only 2 games I know which really master all of this, are Gothic 1 and 2. Play them, if you didn't already play them, but be warned, they destroyed many other games for me, and there is nothing really comparable out there. And they are old, like over 20 years old.
You might enjoy my review of Gothic 1! I'm planning to play the sequel as well!
@@GameTalesHQ Ah, I already did watch your review of Gothic 1, it was the reason I subscribed to your channel. I just sat down after work and clicked this "The Cure For Open World Fatigue" video on my UA-cam Home Site and did not remember, that it was you who made that great Gothic 1 review, so yeah, great Gothic 1 review, I really enjoyed it.
@@volkerputtmann5443 Hahah I had a feeling you might've found me through that video, as your comment here is very in-depth. Gothic fans are so passionate about the game and will find any excuse to talk about it.(as you should)
Do you play yakuza series? I hear it's a good open world game, small world but has many activities
@@Kino-eb1gw Just bought Yakuza Kiwami, as per recommendation of a lot of people here!
Metro exodus does this perfectly. That game is a masterpiece
Yes, absolutely incredible game.
That atmosphere...
Damn spiders, though.
been looking for this comment. aside from half-life, probably the only fps game I would play over and over
I've replayed that game like 4 times across its two versions, simply because I love just hanging out in the desert area so much. Nobody's done decaying rusty civilization better than that yet, as far as I know.
If the forest area had gotten the same treatment as the other two main maps, it would've been the perfect game.
I also liked the approach in Batman Arkham Asylum , it isn't a large open world but gives one ample space and as u get thr upgrades the areas open up much more
I think ghost of tsushima, rather having a somewhat repetitive side quests, The whole side content IS related to the main quest; Jin has to enslave his people, narrowing mongols controlled areas, Worshiping shrines (a spiritual motivation), taking hot baths... Etc, all helping him to weakening his enemy while taking sometime to rethink his acts & next move, improving the feeling that the side quests are main quest related in non forced way... One of the best experiences I've ever had.
Awesome! I haven't played Tsushima yet!
@@GameTalesHQ
What you waiting for? Go hit it now!
There’s no cure for open world fatigue. If your open world game makes players fatigued thst just means it’s not good enough. Normal games don’t have this issue.
They do, its just like any other aspect of a game. If the medium is over saturated with it its gonna get tiring
@@ioverslept. it’s nearly impossible to get “tired” of a non open world game because your not constantly holding down the joystick and pressing a button to accelerate. There’s also less repetitive content. Modern open world games seem to constantly struggle between either making a world empty or repetitive and both could result in feeling the same, where if it’s repetitive it becomes empty and if it’s empty it becomes repetitive. I think elden ring is the primary example of this: base game repetitive, dlc empty.
Only a select few open world games don’t have this issue like rdr2, minecraft, old school ubisoft games, Skyrim, witcher 3, etc…
@@Entertainment-ev6ob I was gonna say I agree with you until you started naming examples lol. Completely disagree on those
@@ioverslept. I’ve never played Skyrim or witcher 3 but both those games have separate issues outside of there repetitiveness and emptiness as to why I haven’t gotten into them. Other examples factually don’t have these issues.
@@Entertainment-ev6ob Witcher 3 has a somewhat shitty open world with it's generic points of interest that are very cookie cutter. The open world was a good idea for the Witcher world at least for making the player feel less constricted but at times it also felt like it was made for people who want to explore aimlessly and that isn't what makes exploration fun in my opinion. Skyrim has a better world but still suffers from quantity over quality and dungeons fall flat in that game as well.
Around the late 2000's/early 2010's I would have been all about the open world. And that's because around that time the genre was probably at its peak, almost every open world game around that time became a classic: GTA 4 and 5, Red Dead Redemption, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, Skyrim, Batman Arkham City. The Ubisoft formula wasn't the standard yet, all of these games had actual meaningful exploration and side content.
Xenoblade 1 had GREAT exploration. There were secret areas to find, hard monsters that inhabited the far corners of the map, rare spawn items. And the great music helped as well.
You should check out Yakuza 0 if you're looking for a densely packed "open-world", some call its map more of an "open-district" and if you ever try it out, you'll see why. There's so much to do (side-activities, random encounters and sidequests, etc.) and it lacks the Ubisoft-type crap that is overwhelming. Also the serious but compelling main story and the hilarious side content weirdly complement each other.
I've seen this game mentioned a lot when researching for this video, it's definitely a game I'll keep my eye on! Thanks for the recommendation.
Main quest : Buy Takoyaki
Me : *Get pulled into an all-out Barbie dressing, alcohol dash war for 50 hours before getting my line cut by an old hag in a Leopard cloth.
I love semi-open worlds and open worlds you get to explore rather linearly first time playing until you finish the main story
AMAZING video, no bs pseudo intellectual talk, straight up arguments and examples, well delivered and precise. Loved it bro
Thanks for the high praise, I really appreciate it!
I really like all of the Arkham Games and how they handle open world. It’s because of Asylum and City specifically that I coined the phrase “Open area” games. Which is basically what you’re talking about.
One thing I think tends to get overlooked when talking about open world games is how they can actually make the locations feel smaller than they should be. For example, Night City is an impressively crafted video game city, but the realities of game design and development mean that it's actually tiny compared to any real city. Or the Horizon games, where you can walk from Denver to Eagle Canyon or Las Vegas to Oakland in like 10 minutes. Smaller games that aren't trying to represent such a massive area can more realistically scale the area they do represent. The city of Baldur's Gate feels huge because you only visit portions of it, but the skyboxes and background details make it clear that the area you're in is surrounded by a sprawling city. You may not have as much area to explore, but the verisimilitude of being in a large city is better maintained. The Deus Ex games are similar. Instead of pretending the area you're in is the entirety of Detroit or Prague, the background art makes you feel like you're in just a part of a huge city.
@@Il_Exile_lI That's a great point! 👌🏼
Love this video, especially that you called out specific styles like the hub. I love any game in that style, especially when the hub area has something new to find or do each time you return from one of the spokes with a new ability.
A similar style I love, exemplified in early 3D action games like Devil May Cry 1, Devil May Cry 3, and Ninja Gaiden 1, combine the hub with explicit levels that begin and end at certain moments. The level-based design keeps you moving forward on a track, limiting where you can explore and when, and that can help a lot with reducing the fatigue that comes with a game where you have so much to explore that it becomes overwhelming.
Thanks Danny! Agreed!
Fallout 1 is the best example of how to make a truly open world combined with the urgency of the main quest: the world is open and you can do what you want, but you don't have too much distractions. Everything always reminds you of your main quest, which makes the exploration of the open world very interesting and intense. You always have the thought at the back of your head: "what if this is the wrong way and I'm just wasting my time?" So, the way I see it, if you have an open world, you either A) make a main quest that is NOT urgent and you have time to explore the surrounding world, or B) If your main quest is urgent, the open world cannot have too much distractions and side quests and everything has to be connected to the main quest. That's one thing what bugged me about Fallout 2: you are given the urgency of the main quest, but already in the first town you encounter, you are bombarded with so many side quests that you immediately lose track of the main quest. It's not bad per se, but I does water down the idea of the main quest.
Classic RPG's from the late 90's already had it figured out!
I like that aspect of Fallout 2, in that the main quest isn't that important for enjoying the game. All the sidequests are what make up the game. It's true for almost the entire series.
Man, while I am a big fan of longform analysis, it is good to watch some high quality, straight-to-the-point content. Hope your channel grow to great heights!
Thanks alot! I do a mix of both on the channel though!
Nice video. Story over volume is always a good choice. The older bioware rpg's really had me tied to the screen (Dragon Age, Neverwinter nights 1, BG.)
I gotta go back and play the ones before Dragon Age sometime!
I think the most obvious answer from a design perspective is to fill the world with meaningful content, but you can also focus the world around a fast placed movement system. The most recent Spiderman games make good use of their world because flying around like Spiderman feels so great.
I agree, only few types of games really benefit from a full open world. Great video as always, you deserve more subs!
Thank you!
The hub system was already present in Ultima Underworld II, more than 30 years ago.
something i really love in recent years is the rise of semi-open worlds where the story is structured around acts that progress the world and fill it in with various more things to return to, my first recent example would be ghost of tsushima
The original Gothic series (and its spiritual successors, Risen, and Archolos) solves the issues of open world really nicely too, although I'm not sure where to categorize it. What is also nice, that there is no rush, no ticking time bomb which miraculously stops ticking while you do side-quests. The game is sort of open world, but there are many areas unavailable until you progress the main story enough.
i personally believe the best open world implementation is that of zelda botw/totk. There isn't anything stopping you from exploring, except for the part that the further you go, the more dangerous it gets. This incentivizes the player to slow down, and choose what general region of the map you go to next, and it's freaking awesome.
Metro Exodus COMPLETELY changed my mind on open world games. Such a gem, semi-open world games are the future. Less is more.
Great video. To the point, and brilliantly.... no filler!
Thank you!
Great video, Metro Exodus was an absolute masterpiece imo, it combines several open-world levels with linear ones and it works really well. After you finish a big open world one, you get kind of a break and enjoy a more linear level which then leaves you craving more of that immersive gameplay.
Great video! I've noticed that some of the later Assassin's Creed games (notably Odyssey and Valhalla) have taken more of a hub/chapter approach to open-worlds. While you can technically explore everywhere, it encourages you to move to a certain area and do a collection of missions in that area, before returning to your hub and selecting the next area. Makes it feel more manageable.
Great video. I’ve been looking for content talking about things like this with the way games have become today.
Glad you enjoyed!
Awesome video man! Love how you broke the semi-open world concept down into the various categories.
@@IronMandrill-Mark44 Thanks!
Thank God someone pointed out the freedom in Fire Red/Leaf Green. I still can't believe Pokemon went back to linear badge progress afterwards.
Right!?
I like maps large enough to give a certain amount of choice but small enough that you are not spending all your time traveling from spot to spot that does not interact with the story or your mission.
The original Balders Gate games did this well a long time ago and gave one the option to avoid the big boss in an area until later when you had built up your party to be more powerful in other maps within the game.
Sometimes the hardest part was remembering exactly where something was that you needed to revisit even with the smaller map sizes.
I would probably add Elden Ring map as well. With the exception of Caelid, each area/zone has a gated "front door" and a "back door." And each back door gets more difficult or elaborate (spoiler) like the 1st back door you just walk around a castle, yhe 2nd you climb up a dungeon, the 3rd you participate in a festival, go through an underground dungeon, fight another boss, enter a coffin, go thru another underground section and finally gets teleported into the next zone. The only way to enter these zones is eather "unlock" the gate via a literal key or a dungeon/boss at the "gates front door" or find the "back door" which gets harder with each consecutive zone. It has that linear design with thr freedom of open world.
I adore Fable and Fable 2 world design. Not too big yet so interesting to explore locations each with it's own individuality
I missed them back in the day, I hear lots of great things about them!
@@GameTalesHQ you should try the first one, it is a unique game in many ways
One of my favourite open-world games is actually Assassin's Creed Odyssey. Obviously it has all the elements of the "Ubisoft design" in it, but I found the overall package very satisfying and, most importantly, it made sense narratively for it to be open-world. The conspiracy that you have to uncover promotes free-roaming exploration. I remember exploring a random cave and stumbling on one of the targets totally by accident! And all the side-content felt like it contributed to meaningful progression. Attacking forts or outposts would not only improve the war score (often necessary to expose a conspirator) but you would pick up resources, loot, and even crew members. This leveled you up, and made you more capable of taking on tougher tasks, which in turn lead to better loot and rewards. It might be a bit cyclical, but it all felt very natural, well-paced, and rewarding. The mercenary system was also a great feature and one I was sad to see not implemented in the follow up. All in all, it was one of the best examples of an open-world game taking advantage of being open-world.
Sounds awesome! I haven't played that one. Ubisoft design can definitely work, I just think we see a bit too much of it :)
I totally get what you mean. I recently started Dark souls 1, thinking that it was a relatively linear open world game and most people would get through it in a reasonable time. (Which is mostly true) Now I‘m already 60 hours in, but without the fatigue and overwhelmingness I feel when I usually play open world games, which market themselves by being so open ended and big. DS 1 showed me that you don‘t need a big promising open world to still get that sense of sprawling largeness within a game‘s world.
I think this sub-genre is called open area and a lot of JRPGs (kingdom hearts, tales, YS, etc )use it, that's probably why I love them.
You forgot Pentiment, it's a chapter based zones, semi-open world and linear + open environments. You can talk to every npc in the game and you can decide on what is the background of your character. The story in the game is full of mystery and it is quite intriguing to see what happens on every chapter.
Cool! Never played it, thanks for the recommendation.
Ooof I need to finish this game
@@GameTalesHQ how's lies of p?
@@NightCrawler2002 Haven't played it yet!
Well said. I also think the future would be brightest with more semi-open worlds. Gives the benefit of exploration without redundancy. A lot of the best games ever seem to ride that fine line
Thanks for bringing up, the disconnect between urgent main quests and open worlds. Also, in most open worlds, traveling and the distance between points of interest feels most often just like "filler" (contrary to say, Dark Souls1 where "mastering" the environment feels as important as learning the bosses moves). Other games where traveling/exploration actually felt meaningful was Outward and Death Stranding, (the latter got me hocked, when I realized you could "terraform" the landscape a little to your liking).
as the OpenWorldAddict, my favorite open world games are actually metroidvania style games (whether 2-d or 3-d), cause they start you off with either a small area or a linear area that is too much to overwhelm you, but as you unlock new stuff and new abilities, you slowly unlock more of the world to explore. I think that is the cure for open world fatigue. It could called metroidvania or slowly expanding or unfolding open world.
One thing i love about these style of games is that you can really develop a lot of familiarity with one specific area before starting to explore and wander around other areas.
Yes, I love those. I didn't want to classify any games on my list as a metroidvania though because people can never agree on what counts as one or not. I'd say Pokemon and Dark Souls borrow alot from that genre, although they don't fit the description perfectly.
@@GameTalesHQ Just to note, Dark Souls isn't really a metroidvania style games cause even though the world of Dark Souls is interconnect and you unlock further connectiveness as you progress, you are allowed to choose any direction you want to go from Firelink, with only bar to progression is enemy level and thus difficulty, but still i am aware that a very skilled Dark Souls player could go in those directions early on in the game.
@@GameTalesHQ Yeah, they don't fit that genre at all, but I see what you mean. Metroidvanias are full of platforming, and you can't even jump in Pokémon and Dark Souls. Well, you can do a sprint jump in Dark Souls, but you know what I mean.
I often glaze naughty dogs but I loved in TLOU 2 how open Seattle felt in some sections. It felt so much more immersive and impressive than the linear levels in TLOU 1
Honestly Ubisoft is the first company that comes in mind when it comes to empty open world games.
Ex-employee from Ubisoft said he felt like a factory worker, doing the same thing every year
It must be exhausting to work there 😮💨
people often complain about empty open-world, but I think they can work if they are big and if they are made for travel. It's hard to explain, but I enjoy simply going through the open world in DayZ with friends. It feels like you are on a forever road-trip and you sort of are, there are zero activities outside the ones you create for yourself and it's a lot of fun.
Everything is better with friends! But yeah, there are certainly games that pull it off nicely. But there are also a lot of them that feel empty and soulless.
@@GameTalesHQ a player can fill an empty world with their creativity, you can't do that with a Ubisoft world, because it's already an ADHD nightmare on drugs ... Jokes aside, great video! You didn't show it here, but I think Outer Wilds has a great open-world, it was a lot of fun to explore. Not to be confused with Outer WORLDS which is an Obsidian RPG.
@@NoName-ym5zj haha thanks!
My friend gave me Outer Wilds as a gift and I just played an hour of it, it's a really fresh take on an open world for sure!
@@NoName-ym5zj I just started Outer WORLDS and it's a perfect example of a great semi-open world ;)
Open world games need to make the act of exploring interesting in itself. One thing the Ubi-towers fail at is that they point to everywhere you can go, rather than letting you explore on your own. It's one area that Fallout 3 did better than NV. If you always go to places because you have quests pointing in their general direction (like NV) or directly to them (Ubi-towers), you lack the independent explorer aspect.
Star Wars Jedi fallen order fits somewhere in this list imo along with Jedi survivor. I think survivor leaned too much in the open world direction and the overall pacing of the game was negatively impacted because of that. They’re both 9/10 games for me but the more linear approach in the first game was more enjoyable.
The thing I love about these games is traveling around the world and have memories of quests/missions tied to places that you can visit later- spider man ps4 was really cool there- „oh, that’s where I fought the kingpin!- or - hey that’s where I I fought electro!“
GTA V singleplayer's open world was done amazingly I think. It was always fully open, but until you unlocked Trevor all the missions were in Los Santos and never stretched out to Blaine County. The curious player could still explore over there if they wished, but there wasn't much merit so they usually stayed in this bubble. The growth of this bubble the player finds themselves in is at an extremely satisfying pace. Going from the suburb of Strawberry, to Rockford Hills, Vespucci Beach, the entirety of Los Santos, and then coming out of that bubble and making a new one in Sandy Shores. It's only very far into the game that you see Franklin even venturing out of Los Santos on a mission for the first time.
I absolutely love these kind of games which combine open and potentially interconnected areas with linear levels.
Metro Exodus is one of my favorite games and the Tomb Raider 2013 to 2018 trilogy is also excellent.
Oh yeah and almost forgot the Jedi Fallen Order and Jedi Survivor. Both are incredible games.
I agree with you that busy work can become “boring” and “repetitive” but I also feel it adds to the overall world if done correctly. Two examples come to mind: 1- Adds to narrative, or wants to compel a feeling to the player, e.g. Haikus in Ghost of Tsushima. 2- Camps done right, what I mean by this is multiple unique camps that allow the player to engage with them how they like, which in turns makes each camp a mini sandbox. Ghost of Tsushima does this good, so does Far Cry 3 and 4, and I feel Kingdom Come Deliverance does too. Yes filler can become repetitive, but I think it’s the player’s responsibility to do filler content in chunks, not all at once. Camp clearing in KCD is really fun due to the game mechanics (combat system) and because you can approach each camp differently. Camps have enemies with different armor and weapons which can become challenging at times, and sometimes if you are going stealth a barking dog will break your cover. They are all “filler” content, but they fit in the narrative (bandits terrorizing local town, get rid of them) and are all unique encounters.
Over time, I've come to appreciate open area (that's what I call 'em) games over open world games. These areas, while small, still provide a sense of exploration and discovery while not overstaying their welcome.
I think it came from Ubisoft primarily going look at how impressive our game is, and how much stuff you can do, and it never ends and blah blah. Whereas, I think most people just want a game that stands out to them with a good story, good gameplay, and replayability. People always get caught up in marketable buzz words like immersive, and then it just becomes so overdone that it's not good anymore. Too much of something that's the same is never good.
I remember for years when I wouldnt understand when people said the size is overwhelming then I started playing games like baldurs and deus ex where you get the freedom like a open world game but you get this feeling of wanting to explore everything in your small map/zone your in before you progress to the next
Hub and spoke are ny favourite - I love when there's Metroidvania aspects where you can explore more as you get more abilities. Prey and Borderlands 2 are my favourite games of all time.
u forgt a great one! - BORDERLANDS series,,, man those are damn cakes!
The total conversion mod „Archolos“ for gothic 2 had the outcome of the main story be changed significantly if you spend to much time on side quest instead of following the main story. Great concept.
VR exclusive „Asgards Wrath 2“ did handle semi open world extremly well as well
I also really liked Assassins Creed Nexus, best AC game imo. It has all the fun AC gameplay but removed all the bloat inbetween by having set smaller worlds and putting you right in these instead of requiring you to travel from interesting points for many minutes yourself
Gothic 2 is also on my 'to play' list, lot's of people have recommended it to me!
I don't have a VR headset, so I gotta pass on Asgards Wrath 2, maybe in a couple of years.
I had never heard of Nexus, looks really interesting! Although VR again, I'll keep these in mind if I ever buy a headset for myself.
Thanks for the recommendations :)
@@GameTalesHQ gothic 2 (with addon) is really great but prepare yourself, its also pretty hard lol
I would suggest playing G2 NotR first but really dont sleept on „Archolos“. Its a free mod and has insanely good quality, many prefer it even over the main games. Tells a whole new story with new map.
As for Vr, one of the cool things about it is that developers are trying all kind of new things with it. No ubisoft formular yet developed for Vr lol. Well and actually beeing in those worlds yourself and actually wielding your gun or sword just never gets old lol
My game will definitely be interconnected zones. Huge thanks for helping me decide!
Hell yeah! Good luck with your game!
Your points are very good and it is very understandable, but i want to add one more type and that is destructive open world environment.
In this type players not only just explore the world but they can destroy anything they want to cure their tiredness.
Some of the best example are-
1. Mercenaries series
2. Just Cause series
3. Transformers the movie game(First Part)
4. Hulk games, etc.
I think the main problem with open world design is scale. Studios create these massive open worlds with what feels like nothing in them, if instead they decreased the scale and therefore increased the density, much of the problem would fade. Then there's the second problem of repetitive content, because it's not feasible to fill in an entire massive open world with unique content, it'd take too much time and money.
I'll always hark back to Skyrim when talking about how to do an open world right, that game had stuff shoved away everywhere, so much so that many people never even completed the main quest because they got too sidetracked by things they ran across. The only problem that Skyrim had in regards to open world design was that too many dungeons used the same enemies and design, even if almost all of them offered something unique or interesting.
Then there's the Witcher 3, which is the best example of how to do open world curated content right. The game may not have stuff around every corner like Skyrim, but it does have a massive amount of interesting and curated content, most notably the monster hunts. Another thing that helped this game was knowing that you were expected to frequent villages for quests instead of just wandering around actually looking for something, people hate on quest markers and what not, but tbh it cuts down on needless tedium which is needed in an open world. The Witcher 3 IMO is the single best open world RPG ever created and it is not even close, I really wish more games took inspiration from it's open world content systems.
I find semi open worlds are the best middle ground for curated content if you cannot reign in your ambitions to a reasonable scope, I feel Elden ring would of massively benefited from a semi open world instead of a full open world as it's open world is just honestly too big and the best parts of that game are the Legacy Dungeons anyways. They could of still had their awe inspiring backdrops without such massive area's if they simply did a semi open world.
There's also multiple ways you could do a semi open world, You could have multiple heavily story focused area's with smaller open world area's connecting them. You could have multiple areas you could travel to that are wildly different with unique backdrops filled with curated content, like The Outer Worlds and Witcher 2. You could have an open world that has sections blocked off and are unlocked in a certain order, like GTA San Andreas. And so on.
Also to note, because open world game often just massively inflate game time. I'd also much rather a game that is replayable, compared to a game that's so long I move onto something else from boredom. One of my favorite games is Wrath of The Righteous, but that game is far, far too long for the massive amount of replayability it has. I'd of much preferred if a game like that was 40 hours long instead of 100+ so I could go back through with different build and make different choices more.
I like chapter based games like in Witcher 2- I wish we had more fleshed out versions of these types of semi-open worlds
Semi open worlds are my favorite games ever. I just get too overwhelmed with too large worlds, and usually most games force you to grind in different areas around the world to get more xp or the like, hence forcing you to explore the world but it becomes a chore, eventually (I don't hate all open worlds, though, I love RDR 1 and 2). I prefer games that give you just enough exploration to find interesting things and then let you swiftly return to where you left off in the main story. Fluent pacing without overdoing linearity nor openness, a perfect balance to give some freedom while still focusing on a wonderful narrative. It is a big reason why the Mass Effect trilogy is my favorite game series of all time.
Since the majority of titles released now are either open world or open world rpgs, my way of combating the fatigue of this is to play a non-open world title after finishing: like open world-non-open world-open world-non-open world. Usually survival horror, first person shooter, third person shooter, or story based game (choose your own adventure, walking sim) as long as it's a linear experience. It also helps to go back and fourth between older and newer titles. Like last month I played through Mass Effect 1 and the Resident Evil 4 Remake. Guaranteed that's a big enough difference to feel different enough. I also work a lot so I suppose by the time I get home I'm usually in the mood for gaming regardless of genre. I can sympathize though if the majority of a person's gaming collection are almost all open world titles. May also help to vary up the genre.
Would definitely 100% recommend the Metro series. One of the most immersive series without adding too much stuff like having to eat and sleep. Also gotta love CDPR ❤️
I love games that have hub worlds and those hub worlds branch into levels, i love it so much. like in dishonored and deus ex.
I HATE REPLAYING OPEN WORLD GAMES!
10seconds into the video, still about to watch the video. If you want to see open world done right try Gothic 1 or 2 or the mod relased like 4 years ago "Chronicles of Myrtana". Those are the best games out there as far as open world design goes.
dude you've perfectly articulated what semi-open worlds are
@@ChadHansen-h8k Glad you think so!
This reminds me of a video by Iron Pineapple where he described dark souls games has a 3-D Metroidvania. I liked the idea because while metroidvanias in a sense are still open world games, the differing design philosophies seem like they would make for smaller, more intense/detailed environments.
the game enderal probably has my favorite open world design of any game i have ever played
Based Enderal enjoyer.
Jedi Survivor is the best example recently
10/10
Any souls esque is going to give a better design.
@@huskytzu7709 Jedi Survivor has better level design than any souls game.
@@theelectricprince8231 I liked and enjoyed both of the Jedi games but no, they don't have better level design than the souls games.
@@hamstergaming1792 Lol, which game? Sekiro? DS2? DS3? Elden Ring? LMAO
DS1 is the only game with similar level design and it's still inferior to Survivor due to it's limited traversal.
The only souls-like game with comparable level design is the Surge 1 and 2
Elden Ring finally clicked for me, and boy, I'm totally addicted to that crack now
Honestly the Elden Ring crack just hits so different compared to other open world games
For me was the opposite, I start Elden Ring exploration really excited but after some time I get really burnout.
I played ER in 2022 until Leyndell with a lot of exploration then got tired and didnt finish the main story
Now with the DLC I started a new game and made a build that I knew where to find some of the items and had way more fun
@@matheuspimentel5828 Do you recall how many hours you had in before getting tired? I'm still on 30+ hours
I've loved every soulsborne game but I'm struggling to get into Elden ring. It just feels overwhelmingly big. I've opened up so much of the map, underground section with Siofra etc. I start each session now with a feeling of "so what now?" and just end up wandering around. Other souls games had more of a focused direction and that kept me going. I'm also married with kids now and just don't have the gaming time I used to.
@@keithprice1950 There's no shame in looking stuff up specially in a game so densely packed and massive as Elden Ring. I made it through most of my first playthrough looking up tutorials to get to certain places.
Playing FF7 Rebirth currently. It’s a very neat split between linear adventure and modern open world style, switching back and forth between them as you progress. Each open world section is a new region with a distinct feel. I’m still not a fan of the “busywork laundry list” style of open world that it uses for those sections, but the general ebb and flow between the two modes is nice. It avoids the feeling of wading around in an indistinct mush of gameplay that that kind of game so often fall into. It also makes the story much more engaging when it leads you to new locations that you couldn’t just wander to, as opposed to the story being a sort of scavenger hunt around an open world.
Cool! I've yet to play any Final Fantasy game.
I hadn't thought about it before, but Mankind Divided really was a departure from the previous Deus Ex games in that aspect. The earlier titles were definitely chapter-based, but MD is a hub and spoke design as you said. I hope hope hope Eidos Montreal eventually returns to working on the series. Maybe they could try a version that is more like connected zones.
My favourite type of open world is where the game is centered around your vehicle-hub: Barotrauma, Sea of Thieves, Worlds Adrift. This approach splits the game in two distinct games: Travel+Management (inside the vehicle, repair, fueling, adjusting sails or engines) / Action+Exploration (on foot, combat, looting, doing quests). These two play into one another, since whenever you steer your ship towards new point of interest you're eager to enter the on-foot phase, but when you arrive, loot new parts, do quests etc. - you're having more and more desire to return to your ship and sail. The pacing is also great with player seemlessly jumping between two genres, preventing easy boredom. This can be classified into the "Hub worlds", but the seemless transition between the two makes it very different to me.
Some games like Subnautica, Metro: Exodus, FAR: Lone Sails do this type of gameplay, but they're still centered around classic game structures, not leaning heavily into this concept.
That's a really great way of pacing an experience, would love to see more games tackle something similar!
Dark souls 1 has the Best map design propably EVER. I just love everything about Firelink shrine, the Interconnectivity, the shortcuts and elevators, Sens Fortress, the NPCs appearing and disappearing from the main Hub. Its so so well design and wrap together. I was hooked on that game back in 2011 when I first time discovered a shortcut to Firelink shrine with an elevator. It just clicked for me and it became my favorite game ever from that point onwards.
Semi-Open Interconnected Worlds have the must fun Exploring and the highest replayability
Dark Souls 1 is a very special game. Hopefully Fromsoft will return to that type of world design. I feel they never hit the same heights again as they did with Dark Souls 1. Bloodborne came close, but that game was more linear. Highly agree with ya!
Sure buddy
i loved that interconnected level design alot, especially coming from hollow knight, but the game gets unbearable towards the end
Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice also rewards exploration really well because if you go out of your way, you can actually find power-ups and loot that helps a whole lot with the main quest.
I loved Sekiro! Really enjoyed the pacing of that game.
The Witcher 2 and Metro Exodus are perfect examples here. They offer big areas to explore, and there really is stuff to explore not just collectables or some loot to gather. But it always feels like youre in the vicinity of the main plot, both location/game world wise and story/immersion wise
I think another way to design FULL open world games, or at least play them in a way that brings back the magic, is to go where your curiosity drives you.
See a landmark, head that way and see what's going on there. Curious about a forest, head into it and explore it. Thought you noticed something and want to change your route to venture in a new direction, why not?
When I was playing Forza Horizon 4, going from event to event, as the game instructed, made the open world feel like an inconvenience or background noise. But then I thought "screw the mission", and just drove in a direction I felt like. Through the fields, down a stream, high up a steep hill, around towns, all as if the roads never existed. Open World was fun and had a purpose now.
This is how I played Fallout 4, where instead of following the objectives or quests it guided me to do, I just let my curiosity and wonder take the wheel. It was so much fun!
It's also how I play Starfield. So far, I can't say the story in Starfield is any good, which I expected honestly. But when I landed on my first planet, did the outpost, and it told me to go back to my ship, I decided "Why not venture out and enjoy the sights?", and I ended up coming across a fight between factions with a large ship, killed everyone, and I suddenly got my own massive second ship in the tutorial planet!
And when I got to New Atlantis, I ignored my objective of meeting the group I came to see, and talked to people in shops and stuff, and ended up exploring a BUNCH of the city and meeting tons of people.
It's moments like these, and the combat, that bring back the Fallout 4 fun I had before. And it's my curiosity and adventuring that made open world games feel new again.
Yes, I think a big part of it is the over reliance on quest markers and hud info. You're basically walking/driving around a big menu screen, going from mission to mission. Turning of the hud and just going on adventure can be tons of fun in these types of games!
I absolutely agree. I think there's too much of a focus on the main quest and having that be driving, but player curiosity and independent exploration is what makes me play open world games. Haven't gotten to Starfield yet, but it on the list after BG3 (which I'm 3/4 through).
I always said that HUB-Worlds like the Tomb Raider trilogy, Dragon Age + Mass Effect where in Dragon Age 3 Inquisition there are big maps ..... but they are not that big except of 2 (Hinterlands and the hissing sands).
This is one of the reasons why Bioshock, or to use an earlier example, Ratchet and Clank, worked so well. The environments were fairly small but so chocked full of detail and storytelling that they all felt bigger than they were.
There's a game that came out during CvD a few years ago called "Book of Travels" they wanted to innovate the MMO into a TMO (Tiny Multiplayer Online). I would say it is like a hub and spoke model meets a chapter based zones. Only the chapter based zones are more like they are still building the world and opening it up in sections called chapters. They made each area small but it each area is unique and detailed. The narrative and quests are more found by talking with NPC's in town and following the rumors you hear from various NPC's you encounter. It's rare that you will be told "Go here and do this." It's more like: "We're going to be so rich! We gotta get to the pass before our hideout is found" "Shut you you idiot! Do you want someone to hear you!?" That's how you hear about quests and places to go explore. It's very well made. It's still in early access and they keep updating it but it's a very pleasant experience. I highly recommend. You can find "Book of Travel's on Steam.
Trailer:
ua-cam.com/video/4nDrqkvumhg/v-deo.html
Just watched the trailer, looks very cool! I'll keep my eye on it, thanks!
Witcher games mentioned, let's go!
I loved the maps in all 3 Witcher games and think they handled the worlds well.
Either an excellent open-world (Witcher 3, Red Dead Redemption 2, GTA V, Fallout New Vegas, Mad Max), either an excellent semi-open world or big levels style (Metro Exodus, STALKER Call of Prypiat, Hitman, Sniper Elite 4, Dishonored, Deus Ex, Prey...), there can be no compromise.
Four things that can make an open-world game great are physics, weather, and event encounters. Red Dead excels in these areas, which is why it has such high replay value-many people even hop into the game just to wander around. Imagine Assassin's Creed with a weather system and ragdoll physics. You could perform an assassination on a rainy day or during snowfall, making the experience feel very immersive. Or take The Witcher with a random encounter system-you wouldn’t have to go looking for side quests; instead, while you're exploring the world, the side quests would come to you. The reason I get absorbed into a game’s world is when that world actively interacts with us, not just us interacting with it. For example, even though GTA has a large map, it feels very lifeless because it’s only us interacting with the world. And the final point is the graphics.
Oh, I forgot-we also have the Nemesis system from Middle-Earth, which is fantastic
Great video! Playing Tomb Raider 2013 now.
Lies of P was so immersive and beautiful, I didn’t even realize it wasn’t open world
Great video. As I've gotten older, I've had less and less time for games. Open worlds with 100 hours of content just aren't in my wheelhouse anymore. I appreciate more linear yet open style games. I think Diablo 4 could have been a good addition to this list.
I think the interconnected style is my favourite. Definitely agree that most open world games just get a bit bland over time which means I rarely finish them. Bloodborne was the first one I played of that style and I just thought it was so cool when I eventually realised that
Hitman: World of Assasination is one such game where there is no fatigue around open world.
It's not open world and neither semi-open world it's a level based game and every level (map/mission) is a mini sandbox
I always loved hub worlds like Deus Ex and Dishonored. Open world games never did it for me until Elden Ring. The whole map feels like it is one big dungeon with more intricate built dungeons inside of it.
Good video, if you're interested I would like to give you a few tips on your English pronunciation, being a Dutchy myself.
You are super close to perfect pronunciation. All you really need to do is shake some of the hard f's, t's and s's that we use in Dutch all the time.
Smooth those out and your English will be *chef's kiss*.
Haha thanks, I'll keep it in mind. Although my accent might give the video's a bit of personality :D
5:26 Big fan of this type, Stalker and Ds1 are longtime favourites of mine. Another one I think of regarding this type would be the Survival mode for "The Long Dark". Probably my favourite singleplayer survival game.
The Long Dark is sitting unplayed in my steam library, definitely a title I want to look into as I also love DS1 and Stalker!
@@GameTalesHQ Definitely worth a go. Although, the game heavily relies on you being able to set your own goals.
I recommend "Voyager" or "Stalker" difficulty until you learn the map.
Avoid Bleak Inlet and Blackrock at first.
Excellent video.
I love open world games, and I don't really mind if they're small or big. I also love the exploration aspect, but it must not come at the cost of making you tired of moving around to find nothing but air. Open world games should always be packed with a variety of stuff to do. Surely, it requires a lot of work from the devs. Then again, I personally wouldn't mind paying extra for, say, more mission packs and other content that really expand the universe of the game, rather than paying for skins and other "boosters" that don't really help with the gameplay, and by keeping the game alive longer (unless mods are introduced).
Thank you! Agreed.
I think the industry forgot that games were supposed to be fun not huge. They should start making linear games again and not open world.
U can say the same thing with "immersion" about the main quest being a need to immediately done. But at the same time when a game acts like a game for having side quests it gonna get criticized for breaking immersion.
Dead Island 2 isn't perfect but I love the zones. The amount of detail and interiors you can enter is pretty crazy. It might have the best lighting of any game I have ever played, some areas look photorealistic. If it was a huge world, there is no way they could render all that.
I was never fatigued with Elden Ring or Red Dead. My two favorite all time games for sure.