Zelda breath of the wild map bigger than Witcher 3 and Skyrim?

[Wyrdness]

Wright said:

 

Well, likewise, my other argument of Maryland and Washington still stands: you can't move between them both seamlessly, because they're not connected. That doesn't stop Fallout 3 from being open-world, just like MGSV doesn't stop being open-world because the same applies to Afghanistan and Africa. And what exactly doesn't compare about being in a narrowed area doing a story-related mission (MGSV) while being on a closed, small dungeon doing a story-related quest (Skyrim)? If you're going to disregard the argument like that at least explain why, otherwise accept it like it is. The narrative progression of both games work in that regard, so why is that wrong that MGSV narrows their story-related mission to a specific area? Especially when then all side content isn't barried behind any narrow space, just specific places you have to be on the world map.

Could you source that number of reviews that didn't say it is not open world?

Broken promises from the developer isn't nothing new. Almost every company does it; you don't disregard what's already in the game (i.e.: the open world aspect) for something that wasn't but was supposed to be there (i.e.: Big Boss evil story arc). Heck, you're the one that disregarded my previous comment because it tied with the narrative of the games and you said it holds no ground, but now you're saying we gotta disregard what content the game has (again, the open world aspect) because the designers didn't fullfill their narrative promise.c

Here's Wikipedia's sourced resume of what constitutes Open World, which will allow us to give some kind of criteria when discussing this thing. Feel free to disagree with it giving your own criteria or another sourced definition:

"Open world, free roam, or free play is an alternative term for video games where a player can move freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in regards to how or when to approach particular objectives, as opposed to other computer games that have a more linear structure to its gameplay.^[1][2] Open world and free-roaming suggest the absence of invisible walls, and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. Generally, open world games still enforce many restrictions in the game environment, either because of absolute technical limitations (such as graphics) or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity"

Then there's this paragraph on Design:

"A major design challenge is to balance the freedom of an open world with the structure of a dramatic storyline.^[9] Since players may perform actions that the game designer did not expect,^[10] the game's writers must find creative ways to impose a storyline on the player without interfering with their freedom.^[11] As such, games with open worlds will sometimes break the game's story into a series of missions, or have a much simpler storyline altogether." 

Metal Gear Solid V definitively fits this criteria. I haven't played FF XII, but if its gameplay structure in concordance with the world it inhabits fits this criteria, then it's open world as well, why not?

Fans don't hold MGSV in high regard because of what you pointed out earlier, the broken narrative promises, not because the open-world aspect in itself. There were plenty of room to create an engaging narrative structure, but players find themselves forced to listen to cassettes or enjoy ten-second cutscenes that clearly didn't add anything at all. Codec was absent. Then all confluents to the fact that you just want to be done with it, and the world is nothing but an annoyance at that point. Besides, you keep mentioning MGS3 but the gameplay system is stripped-off MGS4, not MGS3. There's the Peace Walker structure system all over it as well, but unlike Peace Walker, The Phantom Pain does possess a world of its own, open-ended (Peace Walker was stuck strung with connected areas, but there was never a specific or static world to visit). People fell in love with the gameplay and the oportunities the open-world gave, and while you insist on disregarding exploration, when it clearly did wonders for a lot of people throughout those first twenty hours. Especially when you wanted to take Snake on missions with powerful gear, but you had to take cautious in how many resources would it take to bring good equipment with you, as your GMP could cross the red line sooner than one could think. There's also the animal hunting which I didn't mention, although it could have been far more deep than it was.

I mean, I support the idea that MGSV's open-world is lackuster, but you only realize it when you've invested time into it and your team becomes powerful. Which is what I'm saying Anouma will have to take into consideration, otherwise Breath of the Wild's landscape will be nothing more than something you want to get across to get to the point.

The majority bulk of the map in Fallout games is connected while in MGSV it isn't and you're locked in certain sections on the map as well, gametrailers were one review that said what I'm saying to you. Also in your own quote:

Open world and free-roaming suggest the absence of invisible walls, and loading screens that are common in linear level designs.

Under this MGSV isn't open world due to the being no connectivity between the areas, FFXII is a clollection of areas that aren't semalessly connected and just like MGSV has to load up new areas when travelling to them which going by your own quote doesn't fit under open world. Broken promises from a developer means we can't just take their own words as gospel, I disregarded your narrative argument because it was irrelevant as narrative does not define open world, you were arguing of things to do in an openworld and chose a game that's not really open world and has a more narrow structure to it.

Comparing the narrative of Fallout and MGSV is broken, the former you obtain information as you explore and progress through the world, MGSV you selcet scripted missions and carry out the objective in the area, Fallout everything is happening while you're there in MGSV you have to select a mission to generate a lot of what you brought up and it's all not in one mission. You go in one mission to do one of the things you mentioned then go in a nother mission to do another of the other things you mention etc... This is not encouraging exploration like you claimed earlier they're just mission objectives and sub-objectives and is not even comparable to the likes of Fallout, Skyrim, The Witcher and so on where everything or the majority of things are happening for you to come across this is why I didn't acknowledge that argument.

I can point you to one of the biggest Twitich channels for MGS fans in UKnighted where they flat out said the pseudo open world aspect added nothing and was actually disappointing if you want you can follow them and when they next steeam feel free to go and ask them. I mentioned MGS3 because the roaming of large areas is in MGS3. You're comparing a game that at best is not even barebones open world to games that are full on openworld, this is why your experience with the game and using it as a basis for openworld game arguments is flawed as it's like someone someone playing double dragon then gearing their complaints about it to fighting games like SF, KOF, MK and MVC etc... The game's strength is not in open world aspects to begin with.