Why some open world games suck

[HoloDust]

Frogger said:

HoloDust said:

Well, yes, it does feel that you were talking about Zelda alike structure from the get go - and not all open worlds are based on that structure. (As aside, original Zelda 1 didn't have overworld at all, it was just a hub form where you choose what "Labirynth" you enter (akin to Demon's Souls), but Miyamoto desided (under unluence of Ultima that he played) to add overworld as well.)

And yes, I agree, in Zelda alike games fine balance between "overworld" and "underworld" is crucial (and why BotW/TotK formula is not good in my opinion).

That said, Zelda, although somewhat open world-ish (its actually gated open world), is not open ended game, and thus, from my POV, is not epitome of open-world games (which again, stem from early D&D and its open ended gameplay).

I wasn't talking about a Zelda-like structure. Xenoblade has this structure, Zelda 1, as it was released, has this structure, and you can imagine a game set only in a city where most of the buildings are enterable having this structure (like Shadows of Doubt).

Note I said overworld and underworld, not overworld and dungeon.

If you don't think Zelda is open world, we aren't talking about the same thing. You can just call what I'm talking about "wopen orld" if it makes it easier for you. Nothing about my definition of wopen orld games says they need to be open ended. Wopen orld just has to do with how the player space is designed. I should have defined what I meant by open world in the OP to be fair.

For example, I think all mainline Pokemon games and most Zelda games are open world games. Most classic jrpgs are open world games. GTA 1+2 are open world games. Dark Souls is an open world game. None of the Persona games are open world games. Etc. I'm only bringing up contested example here to show how wide my definition is.

I don't know where you got the impression that open world games come from open-ended gameplay in D&D. I'm pretty sure open world is just a term about the interconnectedness and accessibility of all aspects of the exterior physical game world. A really linear story in a big interconnected world is still an open world game by most people's understanding of that the term is meant to invoke. Most of the time when people call a game an open world, they just mean a game with only one map with no loading screens between area on the map. That's more specific than my definition, but nothing about that has anything to do with the gameplay being non-linear.

Zelda is gated open-world (you might find some calling that semi open-world). Which is, IMO, best way to do (mostly) linear narrative, yet with enough player freedom. It's shame that most modern devs just follow sales trends and are senselessly putting linear narratives into fully open worlds, often making unnecessary ludo-narrative dissonance.

Open world games do come from D&D - you either trust me on that one or you go do some research for yourself. It's just that initially it meant open-ended gameplay, which was indeed done on large "open-world" maps - which is very hard to next to impossible to do in any sort of narrative video game RPG without actual DMs. That is why, ever since first RPGs, you have stripped down "open-worlds" where map might be open, but narrative is not - those are limitations of video games, that, sooner or later, might be solved to a degree via AI DMs.

Again, your solution of fixing open world via overworld and underworld balance is very limited one, since not all games have those, nor do all games need to have that balance. But some do, and are better if they have it (3D Zeldas being clear example of games that have its balance off in either direction ever since OoT).

Last edited by HoloDust - on 01 March 2025