Ever since games have gone 3D, there has been an increasing amount of open-world video games. Nowadays, it seems to be a trend of making a game open-world just for the sake of it. Does having a sandbox feel generally improve a gaming experience, or can more restrictive level design benefit a game in certain areas?
I would compare open world games and non-open world games to understand the pros and cons to both game types. – BMartin436 years ago
It stands to reason that changing something as fundamental as dimensions would have a massive impact on the kind of games being made, and the popularity of open-world games (MMOs particularly) makes them a popular major project. Gaming is a big and competitive industry and AAA games have to follow the money. That said, there are ways to tighten up level design in a sandbox (linearity would be the main one). Whatever angle the article takes, I'd suggest acknowledging off the bat that both open-world and closed-world have their pros and cons, and there are dedicated audiences for both. – Cat6 years ago
I don't think there's an easy or objective answer to the question you've asked. The gaming experience is subjective and will depend on various factors, including what a player is looking for in their game and their personality. Having a more linear game style, I feel, is a good way to direct players through a story in a more direct way. Open world gaming has given players, or at least, coincided with the trend of, giving players more power to make and guide their own stories. One feels more like a book to read, while the other feels like you've been given a notebook, a pen, and backstory to craft your novel. Obviously, this analogy is a bit of an oversimplification. Possible benefits of linear might be: for developers with limited or low financial resources, having a linear design means they are able to dedicate their time to the finer details of a game (e.g. if they spend all their time working on an open world, the overall design quality might be reduced, the story might be lacking, etc.) but this is obviously less relevant for developers who have the resources and time to effectively design all components of a game including an open world. – Kacey Martin6 years ago
Finally got around to playing Dishonored 2 recently and it reminded me how brilliant level design can impact enjoyment. People love Bethesda titles such as Skyrim and (arguably) Fallout 4 for the unrestricted world they give the player to explore but can they ever be as good as games in which levels, environments, enemies etc. are designed specifically for the player to encounter in a way that the designer had in mind? You could have examples of titles that display the positives of each design philosophy and a few titles that show off the negatives (lack of structure, lack of freedom etc.) and give your own opinion of a possible ideal middle ground?
I'm hoping to present on a related topic at this year's Popular Culture Association conference for the Midwest. The push to make throwback platformers or open world games -- almost exclusively -- seems absurd. Happy to write on this topic if it gets the support and notes and upvotes. – Paul A. Crutcher6 years ago
Lack of structure is exactly why I am not a fan of most open world games. Even the presence of infinite quests is bound to be repetitive in such titles. I look forward to reading this. – TheUbiquitousAnomaly6 years ago
Open world games can often lose momentum or interest if they are repetitive and don't have a defined path, games such as Assassin's Creed and Far Cry are fun to play but often contain a lot of missions that are re-skins of previous missions. Games such as Uncharted and the Last of Us can often feel like they are offering more complete experiences since there often feels like these linear-types of games provide greater opportunities for interactive storytelling as well as detail put into characters, environments and enemies. – varunuchil216 years ago
Right off the bat, I think of franchises like Metal Gear Solid and Uncharted as successful "linear" playing experiences; boss fights in MGS are iconic because they're timeless - the majority of the series is a decade or so old, but you can always revisit them and recall the atmosphere of each encounter. Then there are games like Assassin's Creed and Grand Theft Auto - there IS a plot there, for sure; but the open world aspects that these games claim to have is hampered by the fact they just feel so inconsequential. They're definitely fun for a little while, but at the end of the game's life cycle, collecting all 100 feathers in ACII or completing the Epsilon program in GTA V just can't compare to fighting Talbot in Uncharted 3. If anyone pursues this topic - I'd love to hear what you think about this idea of progression. I think games like InFamous really did well in this sense. The idea of karmic alignment based on the decisions you made as a hero or as infamous guided the progression of your powers and the upgrades necessary for them. It might not be heavily plot dependent, but maybe that can lead to the bigger question of whether open world is truly possible when programming and random occurrences can only do so much to make events in the game world seem organic. – Lmquilantang6 years ago
This is one of my big problems with MMOs. I usually fall in love with the world and character designs, but that can only sustain me for so long. Personally, I crave narrative structure. In saying that, there is a happy medium. Games like FFVII allowed you to roam the world freely, but there was always an immediate goal when you were ready to delve back into the story. – AGMacdonald6 years ago