Are games going more Open World?

Bumped into the above video showcasing some of the amazing open world games coming soon.

Is this just a trend or an offshoot of more powerful games hardware?

Or is it an evolution, if you have a game of IP franchise you eventually end up building it’s world for people to play in, another example would be Disney’s Game World.

And with VR due soon will we soon be able to portal between world’s the way we used to change channels with those old 2D TV systems?

Are massive Open World games more fun through shear scale and quantity or is it the multi-player aspect that keeps them vibrant?

You can find anything on the Internet. Basically there are always a lot of things happening around the world. A good amount of it is covered online. You could probably find “proof” that Doom style raycasting games are making a comeback. Or “proof” that more money can be made developing games for Neo Geo. Etc.

It may be that right now open world games are particularly intriguing to you. We all tend to get more / see more of what interests us / is important to us. Just how the mind works.

I can see where there is likely a growing interest in exploring open world games more and more as tech improves to make it easier. So yeah I think that may account for some of it as well.

Maybe. The only thing that certainly is… is the damned uncompressed assets that make files enormous.

That should be the fate of all IP. A virtual world for it to live in and have people interact with it. I hope that’s the case for most IP.

Probably.

It’s probably the price. If you’re going to buy a game for more than the price of a movie ticket, you’re probably going to want more than just 2 hours of linear story. Open worlds feel like more is there to experience even if there isn’t. It just takes a lot more time to get through it. Even if it’s a barren open world littered with random events, like madmax.

All I can say is I love minecraft as a concept and I hate telltale minecraft as a concept. I definitely prefer open worlds and based on what your mechanics are, sometimes shear scale does factor in to that. Dying light is somewhat open world, and the purpose that serves is to hold numerous points of interest that contain different things to do and provide a fun way to get there.

1 Like

I think you can attract people with ‘MMO’ and ‘open-world’ with ‘survival’ close behind. But I think that well-made linear games with solid gameplay and story will continue to do well because the big open-world games take a lot of investment from the player and there isn’t room for many of them at the top, whereas the linear games can always be picked up and played like a cheap novel.

1 Like

Games like Last of Us will always continue to do well, I don’t believe constantly pushing size boundaries does much for content. So whilst they are more popular than they’ve ever been, the novelty will wear off…

2 Likes

Although this post belongs more in the “Game Design” forum, I wanted to comment on your question about what makes an Open World game “Fun”. More accurately, what makes it “Not Fun”.

The problem with very large, open worlds, is the requirements to satisfy them. Otherwise the world is empty, boring, pointless. Otherwise, you’d be better off shrinking the world, game’s scale, or changing the design entirely. So to even justify an open world, you need to meet some content requirements.

Requirements Include:

  • AAA Content.

  • Reliance on Multiplayer.

  • Procedural Generation.

1. AAA Content.

I don’t have to explain the benefits of #1 (Just look at Bethesda games) or the drawbacks (Just look at AAA costs).

2. Reliance on Multiplayer.

Although this requires significantly less work, it comes with significant drawbacks.

This could include a game that focuses on Player-Generated Content, but I assume it’s talking about the recent fad of the Open World Survival Sandbox FFA-PvP genre.

That genre is pretty niche though, nearly always resulting in PvP being a center component. Even if some games are quite popular (although I am skeptical as to how popular they are.) They might be more of a fad than anything else or only draw in certain demographics. We’ll have to see.

The games I’m talking about (and I assume were implied in the OP) are survival games. Day Z, ARK, Hurtworld, Life is Feudal, etc. These games are, for many people, just awful because of their reliance on multiplayer. That is why I categorize them as niche. Their reliance on multiplayer is both their success and their failure. Although I believe it’s the latter more than the former, but at the same time… that is what being an Indie is about. Catering to that niche, because you don’t have the money to “not fail” for the many players, so you acknowledge failing for the many and focus on success with the few.

Otherwise, if you’re talking about a shooter game, a large open world is an even bigger drawback as you’re often better off going with designs that focus on large maps (Battlefield series) or superior gameplay in much smaller maps and gameplay that caters to quick action (FPS games in general).

Why niche games bring in non-niche gamers.

This is here to explain away how a niche game can give the illusion it is popular because of its niche (Open World Survival) when in reality it’s popular for reasons outside its genre (ex. Ark being more popular because of Dinosaurs. DINOSAURS!)

Now, within any niche will be games that break that niche. People who aren’t fans of the genre, but like that game but not all the others just like it. This is because beggars can’t be choosers. As there are so many games these days, there are NOT many games to choose. The vast majority of games are nearly identical to thousands of games that came before them. They are restricted to the more popular genres, AAA budget requirements, or niche genres that refuse to breakthrough that niche (ex. a roguelike genre where the idea of removing permadeath or RNG is ludicrous, so it stays in no matter what, preventing innovation).

An example of what I mean by beggars can’t be choosers is how players don’t just pick games based on their gameplay, but also many other factors like theme or art quality.

  • “I want to play a game with Dinosaurs in it!”
  • “That game shouldn’t be one of those stupid FFA PvP Survival games.”
  • “It needs to be a ‘real game’ so none of those lame 2D mobile games or pixel art stuff. No 2D period. I like 3D games.”
  • “Hmm there’s only 3 games left to choose? Oh, that one has horribly ugly art, overwhelming negative reviews, and the other is still in Early Access?”
  • “I guess I’ll have to go play Primal Carnage. Oh damn, the servers are all dead.”

There goes that player’s “Vast Ocean of Choice”. So what happens next? They either don’t get what they want, or “beggars can’t be choosers.” I guess I will play ARK, despite how I think 3/5 main design components are horrendously bad. “Yea, the game is good, but it would be GREAT if they made this/that an option or removed it.”

It’s even worse when you’re a gaming veteran who has already played the hell out of “The Classics”. Try to find me a game where you have incredibly depth, an interesting theme, fun gameplay (good reviews), that is a SIM game where you manage a team of superheroes. No wait, just find me a SIM game where you manage superheroes. Damn. Just find me a superhero game where I can create my own superhero/powers without it being a MMO or 3D third person MMO-gameplay game. Anything not Marvel/DC? Okay… how about a game like Neo Scavenger, but isn’t Neo Scavenger since I already played it to hell? Oh damn, nothing? :frowning:

3. Procedural Generation.

This requires less work than #1, but once again comes with its own drawbacks. Primarily, the content filling the game is lower quality compared to hand-crafted content.
I am not really aware of all that many open world / large map games that have a lot of procedural generation.

Minecraft & Voxel-Clones come to mind though. After all, Minecraft is an incredibly simple game with a huge open world. However, look at that world. Outside the Procedural Generated Blocks/Environment, what fills it? Next to nothing. Not much to the game outside of the procedural block-world and extreme focus on player-generated content / reliance on multiplayer.

It’s an example of a combination of #3 and #2.

A World Too Big

Vanguard: Saga of Heroes was a great example of a game that had a world that was just plain too big. It was quite an amazing world, and unfortunately a great game that never stood a chance due to technical problems. However, the large world was a huge weakness as much as (arguably more than) its strength.

Even when the servers were filled to the brim with players, you rarely saw anyone outside of central hubs. You could roam for what felt like forever, only seeing 0-3 players along the way. Although popular content was densely population, the rest of the world was barren.

Even the NPC’s felt barren. So you had this huge beautiful, hand-crafted world. They filled it with tons of NPC’s and tons of Players…and it felt empty. So empty, it suffered for it.

A Combo of All Three?

What I’d be most interested in a game (especially one with a world that felt as large as Vanguard) that tries all three methods to fill the void.

  • High level of Developer-Crafted Content. NPC’s, Landmarks, Dungeons, Towns, Cities, Animals, Monsters, etc.
  • A high reliance on Multiplayer. A world full of thousands of players. Not just that though, but using the Players as a form of content generation. Player towns, player involvement in cities, player dungeons.
  • Procedural Generation / Artificial Intelligence. Not as the core, but as the icing on the cake. NPC’s with intelligence to give life to cities. Animals which appear from forest foliage, hand-crafted/procedural events with bits of story (dragon flying down to greet you, soldier battle appearing in the distance, finding random artifact, etc.)

I think with a combination of Player Content + Developer Content + Procedurally Generated Content, the world will feel truly alive. And why not? Player Content is free after you’ve made the tools/systems. Developer content is typical stuff. Procedural Content is more, but generates a ton of content for less effort.

Is there even any evidence to suggest “Open World” games are more common these days?

And by this, I mean relative to the total number of games being released. If the total number is higher, which it is, of course there will be more Open World games. However, has the % of total games being “Open World” changed? I’m skeptical.

I personally don’t notice any more “Open World” games than there used to be. Not many outside of specific genres, anyway. What indies are copying Bethesda? None that I know of (how could they?). So all that’s left are what? Open World Survival games? I don’t think that’s all that serious.

Instead, I think it’s an uber-popular fad composed of games that are in fact pretty damn crappy. (ex. Day Z griefer games). However, enough people “make it fun” via the multiplayer / fad aspect. I guarantee these games also have an extremely low average age. Mostly filled with teenagers still in grade school or college students with too much free time on their hand. After all, most adults don’t have the time to spend 8 hours grinding to get griefed by another player and lose all progress.

There are just a lot of games being released. The flood of greenlight games and the sudden urge for indies to clone one another’s games following the success of some horrible (but popular) mod isn’t a sign that the entire industry is changing toward “Open World” games as a norm.

MMORPG’s have always had open worlds, since their inception. Nothing new there. Same for some RPG’s (Fallout 1 & 2). Even space games that have never been cloned (Starflight) had open worlds.

I’d argue you see less of them now than before. Unless you don’t consider games like Ultima open world. (They sure feel like open world games. Tons to do, tons to explore, and when I was a kid playing Ultima Exodus, you could do things in any order you wanted. Starflight was so amazing, I didn’t ever even do the main story.)

1 Like

I don’t think they are novelty at all.

Instead, they are a key component (along a list that goes with Open Worlds) to a certain type of game genre / game designs.

Fallout 1 & 2 without an open world? It would not be Fallout. You could say the same for all the Bethesda games too, although I think it is more true of the original Fallout games than the latter ones.

Then there is the age old argument of Sandbox MMORPG’s (Everquest, Ultima Online) vs Themepark MMORPG’s. (The former need that open world as a requirement. The latter don’t, as some don’t even have it, so it could be considered a novelty.)

Tons of classics that had open worlds (ex. Starflight).

I think the novelty is in these “Open World Sandbox Survival FFA-PvP games”. Horrible games like DayZ that are mind-boggling successful. That, and the current fad of “Roguelike-like” games, bad/needless implementations of Permadeath (which some games are successful despite it, not because of it.), etc. Although I think that reigns true of a lot of games. “Successful despite [design component] not because of it.” Even more true of the novelty designs / fad genres though. Although I guess the entire “fad” component (which is impossible to generate yourself, it just has to appear in culture) is the single-handed reason why some games are successful. “Here’s a ugly & crappy walking around simulator. Make your own fun, it’s multiplayer!” and “Oh you didn’t know? Angry Birds is THE game to play. Why? LOL because it’s THE game to play. Duh!”

Considering what load times are these days, having a contiguous, streaming world makes a hell of a lot of sense.

The other half of the trend probably has to do with everyone bitching about the extreme railroading that peaked during the last gen. Give it another year or two and everyone will start bitching about how open world games are full of nothing but menial and boring tasks. I expect that this is probably a cycle that will be swinging til the end of time.

1 Like

Never said “open world” games will become a novelty, I’m saying massive open worlds devoid of any real content will become a novelty… Unless the next generation of games is truly to become a walking simulator…

I love that they’re pushing the boundaries, but there will always be a place for more linear games containing lots of action…

1 Like

I’ll argue that it’s a result of more powerful games hardware – but not because open worlds require more power than linear games. It’s much easier to get good visuals now, and with less CPU. This frees up more dev time and CPU budget for other design aspects such as AI and procedural generation.

I hope not. I like well-written stories. Just as ShadowK writes, I think there’s a place for single-player, story-driven linear games, too.

1 Like

The most linear I want a game to be is dying light. A main story that causes change to an open environment with mini-missions along the way.

Anything less gives you deus ex. Ok story, no reason to play again ever after finishing, still has the AAA price.

1 Like

Let’s just pray to God that will never happen.

Gamasutra - 2/23/2018 - “99% of games now VR walking simulators. How did things change so fast?”

2 Likes

Haha actually that is a possibility. When ever a new mechanic / hardware is released, there’s a flood of games that make use of only that. So when VR hits, expect a wave of walking simulators greater than anything we have ever seen before. And greater there is quantity, not quality :slight_smile:

1 Like

When I finish a game, I don’t want to play it again. With all these open world mmos you can’t have a pure, dramatic experience. You can’t be the star of the show, you can’t enjoy story progression, you can’t have all these events unfolding around you and sweeping you along, you can’t be on the receiving end of a well-crafted artistic message because there is no room for it. You can’t be part of (or in charge of) a well-organised team.

All you can do is ‘explore’ a not-so-open world full of the same sort of stuff and bump shoulders with bratty teenagers as you grind for exp and maybe have some sort of twitch combat. I’ll save my time for something better, thanks.

Uuuh, Human Revolution? Cause the first one could be played quite a few different ways (nothing like an int 1 run of fallout, but a fair bit of variety).

Yes human revolution. It’s variety is present but minimal, which is why I used it as an example.

Then why do we play sequels?

Nothing wrong with a sequel, it’s another game altogether?

In fact I do read great novels again, and play great games again, even if it is linear. Of course if it was open world and all that each experience would be more unique, but it would be far less exciting. I’d rather (and I have no problem at all) paying an AAA price for a solid 8 hour linear experience compared to wasting it on 1000 hours of grinding for exp in a tiled ‘open world’.

1 Like