Forums - Gaming Discussion - Open world games; Are big worlds really better?

Pick one

BIG WORLDS 38 41.30%
 
small worlds 54 58.70%
 
Total:92

So it looks like open world games now a days are going for always bigger and bigger open worlds.

Games like Xenoblade X, Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 have massive open worlds.

I personally dont like that.

Big open worlds have several disadvantages:

- feeling empty

- feeling forgetable / not unique

- no bonds between player and world

- long ways

 

Older games like Gothic got an much smaller open worlds which i liked alot.

 

Instead of havin like 40 settlements in the witcher 3 which arnt much different to each other and just 2-3 quest per settlement, i would prefer 7-8 settlement, which are highly unique, with unique residents. I want to get 10+ quest per settlement so i will stay there for a long time and get to know the hinterland. I wont need an minimap or questmarkers, i would know my "hood".



Around the Network

Depend completely on the game.
If it's build on an interesting way, how it's filled, how it helps with the imersion, and all that.
Big is not better by default, but it can be depending how it's made.



Depends on the game. Something like GTA definitely benefits from it. More space to drive/fly around makes the game more enjoyable. GTAIV really suffered from a lack of space, diversity too. With larger worlds there is more room for diversity. Of course if it's all the same then a large world is kind of a waste, but it gets boring seeing the same things over and over so moving to new and different locations is good.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

It depends.Big worlds can be exciting if there is always something to do and it is not big spaces betwenn quests.And the same can be said for small worlds, since it is easier to make it more enjoyable, due to better design, more content per space and so on.I personally like both, something even liking more linear games than open world games, because they sometimes tell better stories or is more enjoyable overall, becuase they dont have the "feeling empty" problem



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Big worlds, small worlds, medium worlds, who cares? More variety = Better. If a world is too big, there are thousands of games with smaller worlds. No need to turn game design into one standardized pile of dogshit. Celebrate diversity, and encourage progress. As resources grow, so too will the depth of larger worlds. Better to have developers familiar with creating large worlds, so they can focus on filling those worlds in the future



Around the Network

Big Worlds if its more than just an empty map. Its about the diversity of the word and the content. If the budget is not there to fill a big world its pointless.



I can't speak for the others but Fallout 4 certainly isn't empty. The amount of content is staggering and there is always somewhere to explore. Since I also run about 20 settlements, I can also say that I'm very attached to the world. It has plenty of touches that make it feel unique, too, like sneaking up on raiders and listening them tell crazy stories to one another (the one about the guy pretending to ride a motorcycle around the wasteland is hilarious) or stumbling on random encounters, like the two guys who look identical and both claim the other one is a synth.



They just aren't for everyone. You have to like to explore and find new situations, you have to like creating your own story in your head as you go. Some people like to go on a ride, to just strap themselves in and let the game take them down a path, and that's fine, but it's not inherently better. It's just different.



mornelithe said:
Big worlds, small worlds, medium worlds, who cares? More variety = Better. If a world is too big, there are thousands of games with smaller worlds. No need to turn game design into one standardized pile of dogshit. Celebrate diversity, and encourage progress. As resources grow, so too will the depth of larger worlds. Better to have developers familiar with creating large worlds, so they can focus on filling those worlds in the future

tell me 1 aaa open world game with an smaller world released in 2015



mornelithe said:
Big worlds, small worlds, medium worlds, who cares? More variety = Better. If a world is too big, there are thousands of games with smaller worlds. No need to turn game design into one standardized pile of dogshit. Celebrate diversity, and encourage progress. As resources grow, so too will the depth of larger worlds. Better to have developers familiar with creating large worlds, so they can focus on filling those worlds in the future

My thoughts, exactly. It's just how I feel when I hear stuff like this. Nothing wrong with variety. If these types of games aren't your thing, there are plenty others available!



                                                                                                             

The only thing that I see that is actually true about open world out of that list is "long ways".  The rest of it, depends entirely on the game.  There's no reason we can't have an empty small game, and there's no reason we can't have a filled up large game.  -

feeling empty,  feeling forgetable / not unique, no bonds between player and world

These I would argue are not neccessarily traits of large games, they are traits of a subset of large games.  

Skyrim I felt much more connected with the world than I did in inFamous, even though my guess is that Skyrim is bigger in some respects.  

Long ways is accurate, but it's not neccesarily a bad thing.  I would argue enjoyment to some extent goes down as games just get arbitrarily larger.  

Imagine two villages at the end of a really large map, there's nothing really to do in between.  Walking from one village to the other wouldn't be the first example of fun for most people.  There is certainly some distance that the game would become almost painful to play.  If it took like 3 weeks to get from one village to the other, that would really suck if there wasn't really anything else to do.  

This fun:distance ratio can be changed though. Increasing speed of travel, including fast travel.  Even if you were to keep the distance the same, the game would feel much better because you wouldn't have to have that ridiculous chore of walking "3 weeks" to the other village.  

Another thing that can be done is adding things to do in between villages.  Skyrim for example, you could go hunting or mining without even doing anything else.  I personally had fun with this.  (Probably moreso than most people, but I enjoyed it.)  If it wasn't just strictly walking, that would make it much more enjoyable.

Of course we can always add more locations in between villages.  Find a cave, maybe another small village that has things to do.  

 

If it is done right, a supermassive open world game can be far more enjoyable than a small open world game.  At the same time, if a small open world game is done right, it can be far more enjoyable than a supermassive open world game.  A supermassive open world game is probably more difficult because there's a lot more balancing going on, (additionally different players respond to balancing in different ways).  For example, I enjoy walking in Skyrim to places.  I feel like an adventurer; if that's not your taste, then it's not your taste.  There are of course limits where I don't really like doing that, but I still enjoy it to some extent.  

 

 

JNK said:
mornelithe said:
Big worlds, small worlds, medium worlds, who cares? More variety = Better. If a world is too big, there are thousands of games with smaller worlds. No need to turn game design into one standardized pile of dogshit. Celebrate diversity, and encourage progress. As resources grow, so too will the depth of larger worlds. Better to have developers familiar with creating large worlds, so they can focus on filling those worlds in the future

tell me 1 aaa open world game with an smaller world released in 2015

The difficulty with "smaller" is that it is a relative statement.  There's no absolute size for what constitutes as smaller or larger.  

In some context Skyrim could be a smaller open world game, and in others it could be a supermassive open world game.