Beamer wrote on Nov 30, 2022, 12:50:
Most open worlds are awful and just waste your time. Not all. Bethesda does them well.
Visually and world design, yes. Gameplay? Fuck, no.
Rockstar does them well, particularly RDR.
Granted, I have not played RDR but only RDR 2 but once again I'd have to say: Visually and world design (realism, live, breathing world etc.): Yup. Gameplay: Fuck, no!!! (with lots of exclamation marks). It was a mostly disjointed boring slog through RDR 2 with stupid, boring random "missions" along the way.
TW3 may not have been a true open world but it was mostly open world and was done well.
Yes, and finally a game that did lots of things really well, visuals + world design and the gameplay + narrative stuff.
I don't necessarily think that the Arkham games got better when they got less linear, though.
I could not disagree more and my experience was the polar opposite. I played through the series back to back when they were complete GOTYs and it was really great from the start (though it took me a bit to get into Asylum due to its consolitis) but then it got even better and better and better from game to game. What a ride...
It's one of my, if not THE, most favorite series. It was a perfect crescendo as far as the quality of the gameplay and the evolution of the world and the systems was concerned. It simply got better from game to game and the DLCs were all awesome, too. Arkham Knight was fucking epic. A masterpiece in terms of immersion, story-telling and fun, diverse open world gameplay.
The FC games have gotten awful because their open worlds are absolute design disasters with no discernible landmarks and no reason to leave the road - automobile based open roads seem to work best with cities, not jungles.
OK, I have not played FC4 and Primal yet but FC5 and FC6 have awesome worlds with definite landmarks if you keep your eyes open. You said in another thread you mostly play on the Steam Deck. That is the only explanation I can think of to reach this conclusion. You must have played the games on a tiny screen where you could barely see more than your character.
We can definitely argue about the repetitive structure of the Far Cry games but the worlds are pieces of art. Montana (as well as its nuked version in New Dawn) and Yara were done extremely well. There was a lot of variety in the architecture and locations if you played the games with open eyes. Both games offered plenty of ways to take to the skies via helicopter, airplane, parachute or wingsuit so you could always get the "big picture".
In fact, one of the best parts in FC6, once you have made some progress and cleared the airspace, is to airdrop on your objectives. If you airdrop and open the wingsuit right away, you can drift for miles over the beautiful world and you will most certainly recognize a lot of the places you have been to. It's awesome and really breathtaking at dusk or at dawn when you can see the lights of the capital city (Esperanza) in the far distance. Wow.
The worlds are HUGE in those games now and pretty realistic with forests and smaller towns, roads in between, a factory complex here or an oil refinery there and then a pretty huge airport with runways and so on, so yeah, like in real life, you might end up in places where you can not see a landmark because your view is blocked by terrain.
BTW, thinking about my recent playthrough of FC3, I'd have to say that the world in FC3 was a lot more generic. The viewing distances and the amount of detail is much higher in the modern FCs so you have a ton more variety. Almost all I can remember from FC3 is jungle, less dense jungle, more dense jungle and the sea surrounding the island. The graphics were still surprisingly good but the world design, variety and attention to detail is literally worlds better in modern Far Cry titles.
So, like anything, there are good examples and bad examples, but bad open world games are much worse to me than bad linear ones.
Well, yeah, games that suck, suck
. I'm not sure if it makes sense to sort the dung in order by its smell. A potential advantage of a shit linear game is that you can probably rush through it faster but why even bother if the game is shit?
On the other hand, I don't think it's much different from a linear game. All open world games have quest markers or waypoints these days as well as fast travel. You can easily rush through open world games in a similar fashion as linear games nowadays if you beeline from objective to objective.
For example, I probably would have never finished AssCreed III because I disliked Connor but I wanted to see the Desmond Miles story to its conclusion so it had to be done. I was able to finish the game in ~15 hours by beelining it. That's well within the realm of a linear game.