By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Frogger on 03 March 2025
Edit Thread
HoloDust said:
Frogger said:

I wanna apologize for how I reacted yesterday 😂

I used to debate here a lot years ago and I guess old habits die hard lol your perspective is totally valid.

It's all good - I'm sorry as well if I came off a bit abrasive, I know I can often seem that way, especially on subjects that are close to my knowledge/experience, and as an old fart that has some 4 decades in both TTRPGs and open world VGs, this is one of them.

That said, your perspective on that particular subset of open world games is completely valid, I just tried to point out that it's just a subset of open world games and that not all of them even have that structure to be fixed in proposed way, though one's that actually do indeed can be made better with better balancing of the two concepts.

I promise, it was totally me hahaha there was a simple misunderstanding at the beginning, but after it was cleared up, I'm the one that made it hostile, not you. Your response was totally chill and reasonable!

Pajderman said:

I had started writing a full on article on why I do not like open world type games. For me it has nothing to do with how empty the world can seem, I never found that to be a problem. For me open world games lack a sense of urgency, like what I do will actually matter in some capacity. When I can spend many many hours sidetracking the main objective sort of falls apart and becomes just another maybe.

My favorite design is a linear progression with freedom to do things other than the main quest. The Zelda games before Breath of the Wild are good examples. Often large world to explore but a pretty clear main path and order.
A game like Resident Evil 4 or Uncharted is extremely linear to the point of many times feeling like going through a corridor and that is probably my only real hang up with games like that. I can feel so cheap having a small piece of furniture blocking the path.

To me open world games are side quest sandboxes. Fun to play around in for a while but soon turns boring for me.

I see what you mean. I think a time mechanic or something would solve something like that, but would be really unpleasent for a lot of people.

It wouldn't be unpleasent for me though lol. I don't need an open world game to be free, personally. I just want it to have a good "flow." I'm happy to have a linear, urgent story in an open world game, as long as it has a more free post game afterwards where I can explore the world as a sandbox after.

Veknoid_Outcast said:

First of all, it's great to see you more active on the forum

Second of all, I really appreciate the thoughtful post!

Third of all, I don't really agree

For me, Breath of the Wild is the best open-world game ever made, yet it has a very uneven balance between "overworld" and "underworld". The overworld is phenomenal and the underworld is relatively underdeveloped. But I think that barely makes a dent on the overall excellence of the game, because it excels in so many other ways: tactical, improvisational combat; a wistful, poignant story; quirky, lovable characters; expressive art direction; immersive sound design; realistic and predictable chemical, physical, and mechanical systems that encourage and reward creative problem-solving and outside-the-box thinking; the feeling of joy and accomplishment when discovering something new; the sense of solitude and wildness; and a deep commitment to player agency and emergent gameplay.

In other words, I don't think the recipe for success is as simple as good overworld + good underworld. Other things make a major impact: moment-to-moment gameplay; controls; art direction; narrative; puzzle design; atmosphere; interactivity; etc.

Glad to be back! Thank you!

My thing is that it's not that the underworld is underdeveloped (to be clear, I think just the dungeons that are a problem - I think the houses and stuff are amazing in botw), but that I really don't enjoy most the underworld at all. Every time I had to enter a shrine, it was a negative experience for me, and you spend a lot of time in them. My point being that the botw seems amazing in spite of its bad underworld, and feels like it would have been better with a better one.

I actually don't agree at all that the underworld is underdeveloped. There are like 150 shrines, and many of them have (albeit simple) puzzles in them. My issue with them is that they aren't good, and they replaced something that was much better.

And yet, I think a botw with no shrines or guardians would have been worse, because as amazing as the overworld is, it can never be good enough to carry the game on its own. I don't think botw sucks, but I think it's seriously brought down by its dungeon quality. Totk does a lot to address this, but imo I think all of the shrines should have been axed and replaced with something else. A few more large dungeons, and a few medium-sized dungeons of much higher quality than the shrines.

Last edited by Frogger - on 03 March 2025