I don't know what gated open world means. The world isn't gated and it's not semi open.

Open world isn't about player freedom. It's about the way the map is designed. You're talking about something I'm not talking about. Story design or mission design or something. That's not what this thread is talking about. It's just talking about level design.

I don't think you are talking about what I am, so I don't trust you. You made the claim, so you have the burden of proof. RPGs have their roots in D&D, but not open worlds. I don't know why you're bringing up Dungeon Masters and linear story lines when I already said that that isn't what this thread is about. There may be a kind of game inspired by D&D, but that's not specifically the type of game this thread is talking about.

It may be a limited one for open ended games (I'm going to stop calling what you're talking about "open world" now), but it's not a limited one for open world games, which is what this game is about. I never said all games need that balance. I said most open worlds (not all open ended games) that suck suck because they don't have that balance.

In any case, it's fun seeing you around here again.

Well, maybe you should broaden your knowledge and look up what gated open world means.
I'm not honestly into mood of giving a history lesson here about open world games and where they stem from...if you're choosing to believe they're not rooted in D&D, that's your choice.
And yes, you're talking about one very specific subtype of open-world games which indeed can be made better of worse with balancing "overworld" and "underworld". And no, most open world games don't suck because they don't have balance between those two, but for completely different reasons.

It's good to be back 😂

I don't like there to be too much contrast between open world and dungeons, for dungeons to be linear platformer labyrinths. Rather there should be realistic buildings/living spaces that can be extensive (factory/hospital/castle) but are still relatively quick to navigate around.

There should also be balance in the open world area. It's a matter of taste should there be one central hub from which you get everywhere practically or a circular structure of three or more smaller centers.
Too often you have relatively small area (of connected places) where is also most of the interesting stuff and majority of the world is fringes where there are only places you have to visit for one mission or minimal generic buildings/dungeons you don't have real reason to visit.

Quite simply, devs make too large of maps sometimes mostly in the overworld (like you said) and don't fill it with enough to do or enough atmosphere.
There even those who think BOTW and TOTK are too empty and bland despite most people not thinking so.

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.

Yeah I understand this feeling. I feel like the most common issue with open world games is that they take place 90% outside, and there's no insides at all. I think the buildings in tlou2 are dungeons in the sense I mean too, even though they aren't labyrinthine. I think it's fine if the dungeons are simple or realistic. I just think there should be a good balance of them! As long as there's a good balance, I think an open world can feel good.

Yeah I love both BotW and TotK, but my biggest issues with them are their underworlds balance and quality. I think the town underworlds (buildings) are amazing, but I really don't like the shrines, and there aren't enough large dungeons of good quality to balance out the scale of the world. I think having so many shrines was a really bad choice for both. I do think TotK is a huge improvement, though.

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.

Open worlds usually suck because they are empty, or there's nothing really to do but collect trivial stuff. Or solve absurd puzzles that have nothing to do with the actual world and just make you think about how something like this would even work in these ancient ruins. Just padding to lengthen the playtime so you won't just run through the main story.
I say that, and yet I love every bit of FF7 Rebirth to the death. Go figure.
Witcher 3 made the open world believable and naturally flowing and things affected other things, there was actual writing there. You had great freedom in what to do and when. With actually meaningful choices many times.
The Fallout games have had good worlds, in the sense that every map location has something to offer with regard to the world building, or good loot or something. You could find hidden quests where you least expected them. Or at the very least some environmental storytelling, a rare item or resource, or a hint about another location. Most places were actual buildings that sat naturally in the landscape and were believable, with some caves and mines to boot. There were sometimes collectibles too, but not a thousand of them and you actually had to find them yourself, which made it feel satisfying when you did.
I don't know if I have a coherent point, just rambling I guess. But when you have limited resources to make a game, make a smaller world with really good stuff rather than a huge world that is empty, or full of meaningless collectibles. Unless you are making an FF7, then do what you want.