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

I find myself replaying linear and narrowly open world games (Arkham series) more than huge ones. Just Cause is boring and just has copy pasted stuff way more. I like an experience with all trimmed fat.



I am Iron Man

Around the Network
BraLoD said:
jason1637 said:
Well the bigger the better.

What if I make a game so big you can just not bear with playing it all? Or so big like No Man Sky's you just can't actually play it all no matter how much you play, but with story developing all over it?

That is just not true, it completely depends on how a game is presented, smaller works can and do work better sometimes.

Ive never played a game with a big world and not enjoyed it.



I prefer smaller, but with lot of vertical landscape design...like Gothic.

Though, they are not as small as they first appear, they have a lot of underground stuff and tricky vertical geography you need to learn to navigate (and they do not hold your hand at all)....this is something I appreciate a lot, especially when combined with unique settlements (like PB games tend to have).

This is sort of vibe I got from the footage of Zelda U so far...hope I'm not wrong.



jason1637 said:
BraLoD said:

What if I make a game so big you can just not bear with playing it all? Or so big like No Man Sky's you just can't actually play it all no matter how much you play, but with story developing all over it?

That is just not true, it completely depends on how a game is presented, smaller works can and do work better sometimes.

Ive never played a game with a big world and not enjoyed it.

That doesn't prove anything, though, doesn't even start to point that way, actually.

Are the big world games you played, I hope a good bunch of them, placed exactly in order of preference to you as they are in order of size? And are all those big world games placed ahead of every single other smaller game you have played? If any of those doesn't answer as a complete yes, than your point of "the bigger the better" is already being proved wrong even inside your on preferences.



BraLoD said:
jason1637 said:

Ive never played a game with a big world and not enjoyed it.

That doesn't prove anything, though, doesn't even start to point that way, actually.

Are the big world games you played, I hope a good bunch of them, placed exactly in order of preference to you as they are in order of size? And are all those big world games placed ahead of every single other smaller game you have played? If any of those doesn't answer as a complete yes, than your point of "the bigger the better" is already being proved wrong even inside your on preferences.

Well you cant honestly make that kind of comparison. Some games a meant to be played in small multiplayer maps, some sport games are meant to be played in a small area, some mario platformers are meant to be played in a linear form.



Around the Network
jason1637 said:
BraLoD said:

That doesn't prove anything, though, doesn't even start to point that way, actually.

Are the big world games you played, I hope a good bunch of them, placed exactly in order of preference to you as they are in order of size? And are all those big world games placed ahead of every single other smaller game you have played? If any of those doesn't answer as a complete yes, than your point of "the bigger the better" is already being proved wrong even inside your on preferences.

Well you cant honestly make that kind of comparison. Some games a meant to be played in small multiplayer maps, some sport games are meant to be played in a small area, some mario platformers are meant to be played in a linear form.

That's exactly the point. It completely depends on the game presentation, how it's aimed to be.
Thus there is nothing like "the bigger the better", there are situations where is, ther is situations where isn't.



Really it depends on which worlds you think of, regardless of size.

I like revisiting the worlds in games like Mario Galaxy or Banjo-Kazooie because of the colourful characters.

I wouldn't wanna revisit the worlds in GTA V because everyone in that game is a sorry excuse of a human being.



Fallout 4 and the witcher 3 didn't feel empty at all for me, especially the witcher



Bet reminder: I bet with Tboned51 that Splatoon won't reach the 1 million shipped mark by the end of 2015. I win if he loses and I lose if I lost.

Like some already said... it totally depends on the game. I think bigger open worlds make up for worse games most of the time, but that's because the developers don't know how to use them. Tho, there are some cases that the game really benefits from it; like GTA, Xenoblade (from what I've seen) and The Elder Scrolls.



Bet with Teeqoz for 2 weeks of avatar and sig control that Super Mario Odyssey would ship more than 7m on its first 2 months. The game shipped 9.07m, so I won

It's not the size that matters, it's how it is used.

I was thinking that it comes down to how densely packed the content is, but then I remembered Shadow of the Colossus. There the world was mostly empty and devoid of anything to do, yet it felt perfect for the game and created the right atmosphere. I really think it depends on the game and what suits it.