Normchacho said:
1. I can't tell if you're being serious? The Witcher is an open world game. Uncharted is not. Zelda, is an open world game. Why are we even talking about this?
2. When someone is comparing something to something else, they don't need to be at opposite ends of a spectrum to be different. So when someone says the world is "empty" they don't actually mean they think Nintendo started the stream, and it was litterally a perfectly flat, baren stretch of nothingness.
3. I agree 100%. However, the world in BotW isn't one step away from having towns every 100 feet or being crowded in any way. If you doubled the amount of trees and animals, and obsticals, ect. in the world. It still wouldn't feel crowded.
4. I'll refer you back to 2 and 3 for the first part of this point. The world in Far Cry 4 has a lot more going on in it than BotW seems to. That doesn't nessicarily mean that the player has objectives all over the place. Just that the game world has lots of other things in it besides just things that the player needs to interact with to progress through the game.
5. I recommend you go back and read some more of this thread. you'll find the posts you seek. That 5 (4 actually) hours of gameplay was different people playing in the same area. How many times did those people go over the same areas and do the same things? How much of that time was spend travelling from one thing to another?
Your last two lines are litteraly the point. The game is "emptier" than some other games. Some people feel that makes the game worse.
|
1. The Witcher 3 is semi-open world. You can't walk from white orchard to novigrad without going through an instanced screen, for example. This is obviously not the case with Zelda. My point is that world density has much more to do with genre than whether the world is open or not.
2. Okay, did I assume that? The game is still not empty. Literally in the first 20 minutes of the live-stream Link meets an old man, gets five weapons, cuts down trees, burns entire bushes on fire, explores three different locales (including a ruined church, a lake, and a road toward a mountain path), walks past some of the dead machine enemies (foreshadowing future encounter), and kills two camps of Bokoblin. And that was only a scratch of the surface of the live-stream. When somebody says a world is "empty" the most common implication is that there is nothing to do in the world, not that the environments aren't super detailed.
3. What is the point of doubling the number of trees and animals? For starters, these are resources in the game that one can used, so it is important they aren't overabundant. Especially since one theme of the game is survivalism. I think there is a good number of trees and animals anyway (you find them in herds, and for this reason it feels more alive and less videogamey.) Having forests forever is not interesting, either. It makes it difficult to distinguish environments, and produce an internal world map. I don't feel the game is "empty", it might be "emptier" than a certain RPG game, just because it is larger, but I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing. I like that there are distinguishable locations that are easily recognizable, and not Bandit camp #100 in a forest area that looks so similar to the one right next to it you get lost.
4. Really? Most of the world of Far Cry 4 has nothing you can do in it. You can only find stuff at checkpoints (Skyrim-style.) It sure is a detailed and realistic world, but in order to do anything you have to travel a good bit. I'd say you have to travel much more than you do in BotW, from what I saw, to encounter anything really.
5. Very little. Almost every time they played they showed a different part of that single area. And within that area you had snowy landscapes, forests,mountains, rivers, lakes, and deserts (much more than an entire map of some of the RPGs people would not call "empty.") And this game is "fuller" than many other acclaimed open-world games. For example, I'd say Fallout 4 is much "emptier" than BotW and that was released last year. The only game I can think of that is denser is The Witcher 3, and that is because the game is exceptionally dense, but it comes at the cost of repetitive environments that aren't always unique. Please explain how Far Cry 4 is fuller though. This map gives a good idea of how dense Far Cry 4 is. Wherever there is a map marker there is something to do. Everywhere else is just scenery.
