I've hinted at hating open world games in several video game posts but I'd like it to be known, I don't hate them. I actually like some of them. But the thing is, I've never loved one. There are several issues that plague open world games that have kept this barrier up for me and (most) recent open world games seem to be content on keeping these problems going indefinitely. It only seems like it's going to get worse too as every western RPG in existence is or has gone open world.
It seems like the reason so many games have gone open world, even in franchises that were not previously, is because of...
- Skyrim's popularity
- GTA5's sales numbers, although I'm not sure why GTA would only now influence game studios.
- Stupid complaints of games being too linear.
- Sometimes justified complaints of games being too short.
- Wanting choice, "player agency", in games.
Just making a game open world solves the linear problem, even though it wasn't a "problem" to begin with. Great games can be, and have been, linear as hell. The vast majority of stories are told linear. Just taking in account this one point, open world games already have an inherent flaw in trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
First image when you Google "Linear Video Games"
Like linearity is FFXIII's largest problem....
Open world games typically have a main quest, which is usually linear fancy that, but to solve the problem of "being too short" they fill their worlds with things to do, known as "side quests". This is my main problem with open world games. It's not that side quests exist, or even that there are too many, but the side quests are almost always a dozen copies of the same thing. Studios faced with the dilemma of creating an open world, while also filling it with enough things to do so that the game isn't too short, creates a quantity over quality problem.
"Too short. Not enough pointless fetch quests and dungeon clearing." - Some Asshole
Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, a game I really liked, was praised for having side quests that don't get repetitive by most game journalism outlets. I...don't know what the fuck they are talking about because the titles of the side quests themselves are repetitive and numbered. The Side Op titled "Extract the Highly Skilled Soldier" eventually reaches an "Extract the Highly Skilled Soldier 16". SIXTEEN. You do the same thing SIXTEEN times. Yes, the locations vary and thus present different obstacles each time, but at its core, you are still doing the same thing over and over. There is maybe 7 different "types" of side op but you do each one over a dozen times.*
*Don't get me wrong. Every game is repetitive about something. But at least in linear and pseudo-open world games, there is a narrative to give that repetition gravitas. Also, MGSV's repetitive side missions are probably a good template on how to make them enjoyable....for a while.
*Don't get me wrong. Every game is repetitive about something. But at least in linear and pseudo-open world games, there is a narrative to give that repetition gravitas. Also, MGSV's repetitive side missions are probably a good template on how to make them enjoyable....for a while.
What do the dots and boxes and boxes filled in mean?
The worst offender, that I've played recently, might be Dragon Age: Inquisition. Every time you come across a rift (a green vagina in the sky), you fight a mix of 5 demons that you fight a million times in the game, then for some reason, have to fight a 2nd wave of the same demons, then you can "hold X" to close the rift. There are...........81 rifts in this game. EIGHTY FUCKING ONE?!?!?* Well, 81 with the DLC but holy shit. Oh and don't even get me starting on the fucking shards. You go to a telescope thing, usually on top of a mountain or cliff, look around to "mark" the shards, then go running around collecting them which sometimes requires platforming in a game NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY optimized for platforming. You need them to unlock the hardest, coolest dungeon in the game. How many do you need?.....114. For perspective, I think I have over 114 books in my house but it took decades to accumulate. Collecting 114 of anything in a game is downright masochistic.
*What programmer was like, "You know what? I think the game needs one more rift".
Sky vagina can be closed with your magical hand. There is innuendo here......
For reference, Dragon Age: Inquisition has 10 main quests. Just 10. These are the only quests that have some uniqueness to them as each one is a bit different.* MGSV has 38 main missions. OH SURE, it looks like 50 but 12 of those missions are actually just repeating previous missions with different difficulty parameters. It's a super bizarre design choice in Chapter 2 and a band aid over the content that was supposed to be there (fuck Konami).
*For those of you reading that have heard about Bioware using Dragon Age: Inquisition as a template for Mass Effect: Andromeda....you have been warned.** My two theories, No Man's Sky will fail to live up to its lofty promises ie. Spore, and ME: Andromeda will have the same flaws DA:I does.***
**Or not.
**Or not.
***I WANT TO BE WRONG. I'm being pessimistic. Please let me be wrong.****
****AAAAAHHHHHH*****
****AAAAAHHHHHH*****
***** Did you know this is supposed to be Lindsay Lohan?
This is the root of the quantity over quality problem. I don't care how creative the development team is, you are going to run out of ideas and/or money and just copy paste the same activities over and over again to get that "100's of hours of content" label the publisher seems to think we all want. This brings me too the elephant in the room, Skyrim (and Fallout kinda).
For the purpose of this post, I'm going to ignore the fact that Skyrim (and Fallout but it's slightly better) has AWFUL combat mechanics that seem ripped from Ultima 7....released in 1992, only Skyrim is in first person. Just hack at stuff and hope your stats are better (I know there are laughable stealth mechanics and other garbage that doesn't work as well as it should ). I'm also going to ignore that Skyrim has the worst inventory management I have ever seen. I mean, holy hell, most people play with a fan mod that organizes your inventory for you. Why is everything in just a list of shit? Why aren't things organized into categories like weapons, armor, items, etc.? For fucks sake, Final Fantasy still gets that right and that franchise is zombie roadkill.
Uh....I said I was going to ignore those issues. Right.
Skyrim is the screaming neon sign of my second biggest complaint with open world games; The storytelling is usually awful.
In Skyrim, not only does it have a shitty story, it doesn't even attempt to tell a....story! Never mind a good one. You are the dragonborn for some reason (is that ever explained?), then you go collect things for Jarls/witches/random dudes to help them solidify power/while ALSO wanting your help to fight dragons (not how bargaining works!), then you fight dragons the end. I mean, look at this ending. ZZZZZZZZ....uh, I mean, "What an epic RPG!!!! I especially like the part where you hack at a dragon's butt for 2 minutes." Come on. Even fans of Skyrim haven't finished Skyrim. It says A LOT about the game when even its fans don't give a shit about the story. Almost every review of that game is "10 outta 10! But, uh, the story sucks."
Open world game storylines like Skyrim lack pace. The player is tasked with pacing the story and that creates all sorts of weirdness. It's a running joke about open world games having a main story that says the "world is coming to an end unless you defeat this evil immediately!" while their presentation wants the player to take their time and go exploring for shiny trinkets. Some games have tried to fix this by lowering the stakes (GTA5 with one kidnapping exception), or by deliberately having a story that works with pacing slow as molasses (Most of MGSV, Some of Sleeping Dogs, and Witcher 3). Others, like Deus Ex: Human Revolution, present a story where the world isn't going to end UNTIL you are locked into the linear last 15 hours.
This lack of pacing is a problem that can't really be addressed unless some aspects of player choice are taken away....and that's the paradox. How can open world games give players a compelling story if the player decides how and when a chapter is played? This paradox can be expanded to a compelling story, plus meaningful side stories, while also giving the player choice. This is the philosophical problem with open world games, and no game has really solved it.
Because of Skyrim and GTA, most games don't really bother to even try, though I know I'm not the only one who gets annoyed if not outright angry at these issues. I have a feeling more people will start thinking this way too since all singleplayer games are turning into 1.) Indie, 2.) episodic stuff like Life is Strange, or 3.) MEGA BUDGET AAA open world game. This will get tired. Even Skyrim fans will get sick of playing Skyrim ripoffs eventually.
So...am I writing this post just out of spite? Am I jealous (a little actually) that I can't love these games? Deus Ex: Human Revolution isn't really open world. Final Fantasy 9 isn't, nor is any Persona game. Ultima kind of is but those games had severe level/gear requirements that basically forced it into a linear game. Is Mass Effect open world? The first one is actually my least favorite of the three. Yet even that sure doesn't feel like it.*
*BTW, I'm ignoring JRPG's for this post since they have stayed mostly linear. That said, how WEIRD IS IT going to be that Final Fantasy XV is open world? It's not Final Fantasy anymore Jason. It's not Final Fantasy anymore Jason. It has the name but it's not Final Fantasy anymore Jason.
Maybe I'm an idealist here because RPG's are my favorite video game genre and nearly every single one has gone open world. Maybe expecting side quests to be worthwhile, have interesting stories themselves, or even better, actually be related to the main story is too much to ask. Maybe expecting side quests to have a great deal of variation will never happen because of video game budgets and publishers unwilling to take risks. Maybe I just have to expect the leader of a religion/army has to go pick fucking flowers because the player character must do everything themselves. Maybe I have to except being Dragonborn because SERIOUSLY was this ever explained?
"Hello and welcome to beautiful Vancouver".
Skyrim is the screaming neon sign of my second biggest complaint with open world games; The storytelling is usually awful.
In Skyrim, not only does it have a shitty story, it doesn't even attempt to tell a....story! Never mind a good one. You are the dragonborn for some reason (is that ever explained?), then you go collect things for Jarls/witches/random dudes to help them solidify power/while ALSO wanting your help to fight dragons (not how bargaining works!), then you fight dragons the end. I mean, look at this ending. ZZZZZZZZ....uh, I mean, "What an epic RPG!!!! I especially like the part where you hack at a dragon's butt for 2 minutes." Come on. Even fans of Skyrim haven't finished Skyrim. It says A LOT about the game when even its fans don't give a shit about the story. Almost every review of that game is "10 outta 10! But, uh, the story sucks."
No they didn't. That was patched out.
Open world game storylines like Skyrim lack pace. The player is tasked with pacing the story and that creates all sorts of weirdness. It's a running joke about open world games having a main story that says the "world is coming to an end unless you defeat this evil immediately!" while their presentation wants the player to take their time and go exploring for shiny trinkets. Some games have tried to fix this by lowering the stakes (GTA5 with one kidnapping exception), or by deliberately having a story that works with pacing slow as molasses (Most of MGSV, Some of Sleeping Dogs, and Witcher 3). Others, like Deus Ex: Human Revolution, present a story where the world isn't going to end UNTIL you are locked into the linear last 15 hours.
"If only I knew how awful Megan Reed is."
This lack of pacing is a problem that can't really be addressed unless some aspects of player choice are taken away....and that's the paradox. How can open world games give players a compelling story if the player decides how and when a chapter is played? This paradox can be expanded to a compelling story, plus meaningful side stories, while also giving the player choice. This is the philosophical problem with open world games, and no game has really solved it.
Because of Skyrim and GTA, most games don't really bother to even try, though I know I'm not the only one who gets annoyed if not outright angry at these issues. I have a feeling more people will start thinking this way too since all singleplayer games are turning into 1.) Indie, 2.) episodic stuff like Life is Strange, or 3.) MEGA BUDGET AAA open world game. This will get tired. Even Skyrim fans will get sick of playing Skyrim ripoffs eventually.
"Farcry is Skyrim with guns!!!" - every idiot reviewer ever. Farcry is Skyrim with radio towers.
So...am I writing this post just out of spite? Am I jealous (a little actually) that I can't love these games? Deus Ex: Human Revolution isn't really open world. Final Fantasy 9 isn't, nor is any Persona game. Ultima kind of is but those games had severe level/gear requirements that basically forced it into a linear game. Is Mass Effect open world? The first one is actually my least favorite of the three. Yet even that sure doesn't feel like it.*
*BTW, I'm ignoring JRPG's for this post since they have stayed mostly linear. That said, how WEIRD IS IT going to be that Final Fantasy XV is open world? It's not Final Fantasy anymore Jason. It's not Final Fantasy anymore Jason. It has the name but it's not Final Fantasy anymore Jason.
Maybe I'm an idealist here because RPG's are my favorite video game genre and nearly every single one has gone open world. Maybe expecting side quests to be worthwhile, have interesting stories themselves, or even better, actually be related to the main story is too much to ask. Maybe expecting side quests to have a great deal of variation will never happen because of video game budgets and publishers unwilling to take risks. Maybe I just have to expect the leader of a religion/army has to go pick fucking flowers because the player character must do everything themselves. Maybe I have to except being Dragonborn because SERIOUSLY was this ever explained?
IT'S LIKE ANGELS SINGING.
Well.....I'm for the first time, optimistic that these issues may not last forever. Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is SO good you guys. Yes, it still has some of these issues, but holy shit there seems to be a drastic jump forward into solving them. This might be the transitional game we, errrr, I have been waiting for. I haven't finished it yet as of this writing, but I might, just might, love it.
Witcher 3: Wild Hunt review coming soon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple notes that didn't fit into my thesis.
1. In case anybody reads this who isn't one of my Twitter friends or non-Twitter friends, if you like Skyrim...THAT'S OKAY. I like some objectively shitty things too. It's okay. I'm just expressing an opinion. HOWEVER, the more games try to be like Skyrim, the more games as a whole suffer. Variety is the spice of life and all that jazz. We all lose if we just get different versions of the same game.
2. I didn't really address how video game publishers are influenced by GTA's sales but OF COURSE they are. It's the reason every movie is Star Wars now.....or.....wait, no they aren't. Granted, most big budget movies are "Star Wars" or "Marvel Movie Empire" or "Same Thing" but at least we get a Mad Max: Fury Road....and high budget war dramas...and high budget period dramas....and weirdly high budget comedies that usually tank but is kinda okay....and....and....
Okay, so those too are kind of rare, but the thing is, movies have learned how to do medium budget movies. Why can't games do this? It's either AAA or indie. Almost no in between. The only recent two I can think of is Alien:Isolation and Xcom2. I'm sure I could Google more (Bayonetta 2 maybe?) but my point is, I can think of only a few off the top of my head while I could list more movies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter.
I never finished Skyrim either.
Witcher 3: Wild Hunt review coming soon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple notes that didn't fit into my thesis.
1. In case anybody reads this who isn't one of my Twitter friends or non-Twitter friends, if you like Skyrim...THAT'S OKAY. I like some objectively shitty things too. It's okay. I'm just expressing an opinion. HOWEVER, the more games try to be like Skyrim, the more games as a whole suffer. Variety is the spice of life and all that jazz. We all lose if we just get different versions of the same game.
2. I didn't really address how video game publishers are influenced by GTA's sales but OF COURSE they are. It's the reason every movie is Star Wars now.....or.....wait, no they aren't. Granted, most big budget movies are "Star Wars" or "Marvel Movie Empire" or "Same Thing" but at least we get a Mad Max: Fury Road....and high budget war dramas...and high budget period dramas....and weirdly high budget comedies that usually tank but is kinda okay....and....and....
Okay, so those too are kind of rare, but the thing is, movies have learned how to do medium budget movies. Why can't games do this? It's either AAA or indie. Almost no in between. The only recent two I can think of is Alien:Isolation and Xcom2. I'm sure I could Google more (Bayonetta 2 maybe?) but my point is, I can think of only a few off the top of my head while I could list more movies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter.
I never finished Skyrim either.
No comments:
Post a Comment