Also, how do open worlds (in theory, at least) not allow you to explore every inch?
I honestly can't even fathom why people would prefer closed worlds in games aside from when it allows them to be more story-focused.
Its not strictly about a story focus, its about allowing for tighter, more focused progression in general.Tighter and more focused how?
Also, how do open worlds (in theory, at least) not allow you to explore every inch?Because open worlds are often big empty swaths of nothing. There's no reason to explore where is closed areas may mean closed but that doesn't mean they have to be small and actually can be well designed.
Tighter and more focused how?You can script events easier, naturally lead players to points of interest, It quite literally focuses the gameplay.
Because open worlds are often big empty swaths of nothing. There's no reason to explore where is closed areas may mean closed but that doesn't mean they have to be small and actually can be well designed.And to that I will repeat this in response:
Nowadays the Ubisoft design philosophy plagues most open world games. Back in the day, people stopped liking closed or linear games because games like Call of Duty campaign could be a hallway simulator.
The maze level philosophy is the best in my opinion, branching paths, dead ends and make use of verticality.
Open worlds feeling empty or repetitive is the fault of lazy design, not the open world itself.
You can script events easier, naturally lead players to points of interest, It quite literally focuses the gameplay.I suppose you do have a point there. Though plenty of open world games still have largely linear quests or missions, which can allow for that kind of focused gameplay.
An easy to understand metaphor would be like having a Halloween event where the objective is to scare people. What's going to be easier to scare people, doing it in a big field where the player has freedom to go wherever they want? Or in a haunted house where you know there's only a few hallways they can go down and you can set up surprises along the way.
And to that I will repeat this in response:When most of them are lazily designed, that may as well be a distinction without a difference.
I suppose you do have a point there. Though plenty of open world games still have largely linear quests or missions, which can allow for that kind of focused gameplay.
I guess I just normally don't like it when the whole game is closed off like that, as at its worst it can feel like a hallway simulator as you mentioned. Scripted progression and naturally guiding the player is mostly fine, but I really don't care for excessive handholding and arbitrary roadblocks.
When most of them are lazily designed, that may as well be a distinction without a difference.Okay, but couldn't that simply be an argument for better open world games, not against open worlds themselves?
The bottom line is most open world games are fun for 20 or 30 hours until the new of exploration wears off, then the vast majority of them become increasingly boring, repetitive, and tedious until youre done with them. They feel like 20 hour games padded with 80 hours of tedious crap.
Open worlds feeling empty or repetitive is the fault of lazy design, not the open world itselfI mean that's the flaw to anything ever. Any game can be bad because of bad design. What I'm saying is I think it takes more skill to make a good open world game than it does to make non open world game. I wouldn't necessarily call it a closed world game either because lots of games have plenty of options in a majority of the games I've played with the best exploration were not open world.
Okay, but couldn't that simply be an argument for better open world games, not against open worlds themselves?Have you paid attention to the industry at all for the last couple decades? If you had, you wouldnt ask that question.
I like both a lot, its the individual game mechanics that hook me.
So yes, open world games are harder to pull off well. And AAA game development is a race to the bottom, I am well aware. But why is the concept of closed worlds preferable to that of open worlds for so many? Is it just because the latter is easier to mess up?Because in the real world we have observed closed world games turn out to be great games far more consistently, and there are barely any of them now, while open world games are at this point a horse thats been beaten until it died and then its corpse was beaten until it was pulp inside a 20 foot deep hole. Thats how overdone and samey they are.
So yes, open world games are harder to pull off well. And AAA game development is a race to the bottom, I am well aware. But why is the concept of closed worlds preferable to that of open worlds for so many? Is it just because the latter is easier to mess up?No, it's just at a different point on the continuum between a puzzle and a sandbox. On the sandbox end, you're given more freedom, but your choices only have the meaning you give them. On the puzzle end, your options are more limited but you're rewarded for finding the solution.
Tighter and more focused how?Less bloat, more structure. Instead of having to worry about where to go and how, you just have to focus on executing whatever task.