Wyrdness said:
The majority bulk of the map in Fallout games is connected while in MGSV it isn't and you're locked in certain sections on the map as well, gametrailers were one review that said what I'm saying to you. Also in your own quote:
Open world and free-roaming suggest the absence of invisible walls, and loading screens that are common in linear level designs.
Under this MGSV isn't open world due to the being no connectivity between the areas, FFXII is a clollection of areas that aren't semalessly connected and just like MGSV has to load up new areas when travelling to them which going by your own quote doesn't fit under open world.
|
Did you miss this part afterwards that quote?
"Generally, open world games still enforce many restrictions in the game environment, either because of absolute technical limitations (such as graphics) or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity"
And I'm not sure I understand. The majority of MGSV is connected, meaning you can go anywhere in Afghanistan; what's not connected to this place is Africa, which is the same case scenario on Fallout 3: you can explore Washington, but Maryland isn't connected to this place. What's so hard to understand there?
And since you mentioned the Gametrailers review, I went and watched it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTrhGCH9TOk
This is what I gathered:
· Minute 0:44 - They mention the open-world aspect.
· Minute 4:35 - They mention how much evolved this game is in comparison to Peace Walker thanks to the open-world aspect, and then proceeds to detail it.
· Minute 5:00 - They mention the reasons to explore this open-world aspect.
· Minute 9:10 - They actually point out how these open-world places eventually drag on after too many hours invested in them.
So they too say it's an open-world game.
Wyrdness said:
Broken promises from a developer means we can't just take their own words as gospel, I disregarded your narrative argument because it was irrelevant as narrative does not define open world, you were arguing of things to do in an openworld and chose a game that's not really open world and has a more narrow structure to it.
Comparing the narrative of Fallout and MGSV is broken, the former you obtain information as you explore and progress through the world, MGSV you selcet scripted missions and carry out the objective in the area, Fallout everything is happening while you're there in MGSV you have to select a mission to generate a lot of what you brought up and it's all not in one mission. You go in one mission to do one of the things you mentioned then go in a nother mission to do another of the other things you mention etc... This is not encouraging exploration like you claimed earlier they're just mission objectives and sub-objectives and is not even comparable to the likes of Fallout, Skyrim, The Witcher and so on where everything or the majority of things are happening for you to come across this is why I didn't acknowledge that argument.
I can point you to one of the biggest Twitich channels for MGS fans in UKnighted where they flat out said the pseudo open world aspect added nothing and was actually disappointing if you want you can follow them and when they next steeam feel free to go and ask them. I mentioned MGS3 because the roaming of large areas is in MGS3. You're comparing a game that at best is not even barebones open world to games that are full on openworld, this is why your experience with the game and using it as a basis for openworld game arguments is flawed as it's like someone someone playing double dragon then gearing their complaints about it to fighting games like SF, KOF, MK and MVC etc... The game's strength is not in open world aspects to begin with.
|
Bethesda has broken many, many promises all over time and time again. But you don't take one of their games and say "It's not open world!" just because Todd Howard said some things about it that never came true. Heck there's a whole generation of memes based on this dude saying things that never happen.
Most infamous comment would be the one about the player being able to climb all the mountains in Skyrim:
So, let me ask you, now we don't consider Skyrim open-world because the dev lied about its world's mountains? Being skeptical is a good thing, and pointing out the flaws is nice. When everyone and their mom says it's open-world, then maybe because it's an adherent truth to it. Even your gametrailer example ended up saying it's open-world.
Narrative does not define an open-world, but you insist on tackling down MGSV's open world issue because of its narrative-based mission structure, which is precisely why I point out the fact that open-world games also narrow down the area you have to go next when dealing with a narrative-based quest or place. If you leave the mission area you fail the mission but you're still free to go wherever you want; though you'll have to go back to the beginning of the mission if you wish you undertake it again; the same with Skyrim if you're in a quest-based dungeon and you choose to leave it and come back together to finish it off.
Your second case provides what's considered to be the ludonarrative dissonance problem of most open-world games, just the fact that in MGSV's case it is inverted. You might unlock a lot of things in Fallout by exploring, but the crucial main plot - saving your dad - will trigger regardless of how much time you take upon completion of the world. You could go and save every single lifeform (or kill them all) and your dad will remain stationary in the same place, while the Enclave won't do a thing until you've gone and save your dad. The quest have to be generated by interacting with it, just like you trigger a mission in MGSV by either using the iDroid or going to the specific mission area and starts it. Likewise, no main quest in almost any open-world game encourages exploration, but rather full forces you to go a linear, narrowed path. That neither applies to Skyrim's secondary content, nor MGSV's secondary content. They both keep fitting on the definition I gave you earlier. You said you can't alter anything until you trigger it, but that's not true either: there are missions on which you could fullfill their request before entering the mission, then activating it and a surprised Ocelot will tell you that the mission has been completed. It's an example that fits how the open-world aspect allows you to act before the thing even starts.
Dissapointed fans with MGSV is nothing new. But fine, I'll give you the "one of the biggest MGS Twitch clubs" said "it's pseudo". As I said earlier, you and probably someone else would disagree with the open-world being open-world. Here's a nice disclaimer on that Twitch channel you mentioned:
DISCLAIMER: All three streamers have their own opinions and chat moderation style. OHN doesn't have "official" views on things. One streamers opnion, etc, don't necessarily represent the other two.
So even the opinion of one of the streamers, the one that said "pseudo" doesn't necessarily has to be the same as the other two, who are also part of such "big MGS channel".
I'm not sure I get your barebones and full definitions of open-world, as I have not seen any definition given from you (I guess we're still using the Wikipedia one?), and such all games mentioned thus far enter the criteria. You're adamant on taking down an established open-world definition for MGSV for no reason at all, and instead could take virtue in pointing out the existing flaw's in MGSV's open world system when compared to what could possibly case in Breath of the Wild. Both games offer multiples possibilities, both games offer a place to explore and items to be find, and customizable main characters with both developed gear or one you could find on the map. You can keep trying to say MGSV isn't open-world but nothing you've said so far suggest it other than the main mission blocking you to a specific path, which is something not unlike any other open-world game.
Again, I agree that the game's weakness is precisely its open-world aspect, because it becomes barren and dull once you've invested time into it. It is something I've been saying all this time, but that's not because of the open-world per se, which is actually good when you're an underpowered, crippled soldier. It's the fact that it becomes void of any fun when you can destroy everything on your own way.
I'm not sure why we keep discussing this, either. I already gave you a definition on which MGSV fit. I already explained the discrepancies (and similarities) between the structure of Skyrim/Fallout and MGSV. I already pointed out how critics alike agree with the open-world thing, even your mentioned Gametrailers. I said that not everyone had to agree, probably you and someone else didn't feel like that. It's fine, I'm not here to convince anyone from anything. But there's not much I can say and more proof I can give before this conversation becomes all too redundant. Like I said earlier, it would have been much better to talk about possible Breath of the Wild's open-world virtues and defects by examining the post-morten of MGSV's open-world system, which can be easily compared to both by the similarities present as I explained them before. Instead you're trying to disprove something that's already proven and established by almost everyone. You disagree with it, fine.
