Name any game that isn’t
If so I would want to play it

Valheim, AC, rdr2 etc

Hopefully days gone isn’t

I like the way valheim lets you go straight for the boss almost like Breath of the Wild but its really up to you to decide how much you want to prepare and thats like a really sick way to induce OCD for me it gets me every time. It gives a good reason to do the things you do amongst many other inherent things to solve and prepare for. Plus you can have heated floor that actually make sense to have. Theres a lot of little freedoms that lead to uniqe rewards for being thorough and little touches like that all inherent in the game design which is secretly very thought out and crafted.

The game design is charming and really builds your trust as it goes along. Which is rare in games.

Its also important not to look anything up online or spoil yourself otherwise theres no point to play anymore since you neuter your intended rewards and surprised and puzzle solving/engineering efficiency.

Every open world game has it, some offend far less than others. Ubisoft games are the worst, specifically their AC series. Days Gone, HZD, GoW all feel very light on mandatory "chores".

all of these and

- spiderman
- ghosts of tsushima (if you focus on the main story)
- ff vii (technically not a true open world game, but still many open world aspects to it)
- borderlands
- nier automata

those are just the recentish games OP. plenty more going back to the launch of the ps4

cyberpunk also doesnt look like it is heaby on mandatory chores

True. TES games got it right by spreading quests, stories, npcs, rewards all throughout the world that are worth (sometimes) finding so exploring the world is fun and all these things feel like discoveries.

These other games give you open world just to add some ground for you to cover. Some of the story takes place here, some across the map. Wtf is the point. This is why I couldnt get into Breath of the Wild. Empty world with nothing to see

Witcher 3 is damn good. The side quests really stand out, they aren't copy and paste. Ghost of Tsushima sucks because all the side quests are the same.

Developers really should start pulling some of the team aside to work on side quests. Those are really what makes or break an open world game.

Pretty sure our children's children are going to talk about tw3...

ES6 WILL suck. It WILL be more fetch quests that have nothing to do with developing your character.

If you thought breath of the old was empty your brain is empty lol

Really loved and got immersed in the open world of Witcher 3, Ghost of Tsushima, GR: Wildlands, Far Cry 3 &4.

It's a joy to get side tracked and just explore the world sometimes and discover some really pretty sights, or a small town perhaps with a community living there. Its the charm of open world games for me.



I think if you're not the type to enjoy exploring things aside from the main story line, then open world games will really feel like a chore. Its not just the side missions, but also collecting stuff for your gear etc.

lol

Yeah, I'm sick of open world games as well, even though I keep playing em .... Most of them are just filled with unnecessary busy work and are far too big. The only good thing about them is that nowadays they're just visually impressive.


I'd much prefer they scale back and just add far more density to the world.

Ghost of Tsushima side quests are terrible and side quests make or break an open world game. If they're repetitive and bland, the game sucks imo. I give it a 6, would be a solid 9 had the side quests been better.

Devs need to start having part of the team focus hard on side quests instead of throwing it all together. If all you do is focus on the story then gamers have no incentive to explore.

Rdr2 best open world ever just cruising around on horse

I concur. Here is a good video on it.


I consider god of war more linear in it's structure. It's like a linear/metroidvania hybrid.

Eh it depends, the Ubisoft ones definitely feel that way, but of course Assassins Creed critics have been saying that for what feels like forever now but the usual fans still buy every release. I think they're the worst offender because they just create such formulaic games where they just keep pumping out the same experience over and over again but with some new gimmick thrown in to make every new release seem more interesting. So people keep buying this generic trash and the devs need to come up with loads of generic time consuming bullchit to do in these games so they can flex how many hours you can get out of their mind numbing crap.

Well said, that game feels like more of a modern take on the metroidvania genre than anything else, there is a clear progression goal.

They are the best i just bought Zero Horizon Dawn for PC

61 side quests, all tied up to the current predicament of the island and it's history and culture, summed up in one word.



had a ton of fun doing the side quests and would do them all again when it comes to PC

RDR2 had it best, used its large open world correctly.

If you want you can blast through the story and it's just a case of a couple of mins travel time (usually while conversing with gang members)

On the other hand if you want to spend 20 hours fishing in the mountains that's fine too

Thing is RDR2 has an EPIC story where most open world games don't.

Horizon Zero Dawn is the most beautiful game besides maybe Forza

So these comments about RDR2..... I appreciate the beauty of the world, and the writing. Goshdarn, some of the best writing in a video game. But I HATE the animation system. Everything is soooooooo slow. I know the intent was for it to be completely realistic... but that didn't make it good.It is very pretty. I'm expecting better writing from the sequel. What is your favorite season if FH4? I like Autumn and Spring.Can't wait for the sequel.

Autumn because of the fall foliage but Spring isn't far behind

Looks insane on my Dell s3220dgf

And yeah RDR2 feels clunky and slow that's why i like games like Forza and Horizon Zero Dawn

Mass Effect 1 and 2, GTA4, Borderlands2 were great. I don't play games much now other than Reach but it seems like open worlders are just a way to develop easier and fleece the most money they can.

Talking about Reach, all the players are on the other side of the world and I'm done with the lag. What's the best fps games that's popular? Spent a decade getting good at Reach now I will be getting wrecked by kids.

Yeah it's their best cinematic game IMO, I think the metroidvania elements make it far more enjoyable than most to play.

really i thought the zero dawn story was surprisingly interesting and well done

Pretty sure that rockstar engine is just trash and been updated very little since early GTA games.I loved HZD gameplay and performance. Story was Ubisoft tier IMO, very bad when compared to other Sony games.

Not a fan of open world game in general, doing chores left and right to pass the time with nothing to add to the story or getting godly item.

They've taken it too far now with this survival game open world, building houses , styling your camp, etc.
brb spending 2 hours remodeling my house in Valheim while my room where I sleep looks like it needs a remodeling first.

One trick is to create a wood flooring plane and then let it get rained on so it turns grey and then build a roof over the whole thing and then only repair certain tiles so they turn brown and you can create a design of rows or patterns with two hues for that extra touch of luxury.

This video describes a major problem with RDR2 quite well:



Expanding upon that and touching on the sluggish animations, I point to an ever increasing conflict between Rockstar's own narrative, "role playing," and open world gameplay.

Rockstar has been leaning towards this railroaded approach to how you can complete their missions despite games like GTA 5 and RDR2 ostensibly being open world, and will punish the player from veering off oftheirintended path to the point of causing a fail state that requires restarting again.

This seeming contradiction to the open world ethos is almost hilariously reinforced by the slow, drawn out animations that its proponents often go so far to defend as being the game's way of discouraging behavior like looting corpses becauseArthurwould not stoop so low.

Sowhybother with an open world game that punishes the player for treating it as a sandbox if the "intended" experience is just going to be a relatively linear story followingRockstar'scharacter arc? That isn't to say that theydon'thave fantastic writinganda beautiful world begging to be explored, but there's certainly a growing trend with how they seem to want you to "role play"theircharacter(s) in contrast to letting the player loose to essentially play whatever role they please in this open world. All of this despite the fact that technological progression should allow more freedom rather than less.Ubisoft has a lot of promise, but they get under my skin the most for repeatedly squandering what potential their games have in favor of these shallow, kitchen sink, far-too-open world games.

They take what I was talking about above a new extreme where unlike Rockstar whohasstrong writing and interesting characters, Ubisoft has fanfic ravings supported by planks of wood that they outrightforceyou to play the role as, no questions asked.

Valhalla epitomizes this where even a game playing as a fukkingviking, killing a civilian results in an instant fail becauseUbisoftsays thattheir******* viking wouldn't do that. Well, boo-fukking-hoo, vikings killed civilians, so let me go on a bloody rampage in this supposedly open world viking game. Read a book for once in your lives, Ubisoft writers.

Ubisoft takes some of the most interesting, beautiful, and unique settings that no other AAA studio is tackling, designs these highly detailed, massive worlds, but then decides, "nah, we're going to railroad the player along our bullsh*t, nonsensical story that might as well call the earth flat next to alien forerunners we shoved into this garbage."

If the story angle wasn't bad enough, the actual gameplay is just as shallow, mismanaged, inconsistent, and incompetent. If you could sum up Ubisoft's writing and gameplay departments with one gif, it would be this:


Those chucklefukks can't even decide whether or not their "assassin" game should be arsed to have a proper stealth system - never mind that a bloody viking somehow qualifies as an assassin in their eyes.Dark Souls was a real eye opener for me as to how you can have an open-ishworld that allows (a) optional, branching paths and (b) sections of the world crafted with intent and detail.

The other facet developers need to make sure is up to snuff, though, is the gameplay itself, which again makes DS a perfect example to point towards. Nobody needs 16x the kilometers if the world is going to be dull and the combat is going to be brain damaged, yet a lot of open world games pump way to much emphasis on how much distance you can hoof it.

I have found that Witcher III doesn't get old due to the variety in side missions. It isn't just go to X, kill Y and return...the contracts are like that of course mainly, but what do you expect? Geralt is being hired for that specific purpose. Even with the contracts you can handle it in different way if the "monster" isn't totally feral and inhuman.

Some side missions don't involve fighting, some do. Some involve escorting, some involve puzzle solving, some involve mediation, some just involve locating an object. Plus with all the connections in the game, you feel that the choices you make matter, even if they seem tiny at the time. Like there is one mission where you are confronted with a mixture of non-humans, and you have to argue the case you don't blindly kill ALL monsters, citing examples from previous decisions you made in the game.