Gaming

I can't say one or the other globally. It is very much game dependent for me. There are open worlds that are just wonderful and it's joy to play them and there are others whose world is empty and useless and that sucks.

One of the best executed open wolrds is old Gothic IMO (Gothic 2 is great too). Sure it's probably ugly and bland by today standards, but the world is absolutely amazing. It's completely open from the start, but player is so weak it is probably good idea to play semi-linear at the beginning. But nothing (except for tough enemies) stops you from exploring whatever and whenever you want. And there are tons and tons of things to explore. Hidden cave with loot? Shortcut connecting two roads? Place with very rare alchemy ingredient at the end of narrow valley? Shadowbeast lair? There is so much love put in there I still have cravings to play it even though it's like quarter of century old game... Quite the same can be said for e.g. Morrowind which is another absolute gem from early 2000s.

But there are also open world games where open world either simply sucks or serves no purpose. I'd have to think about which games fall in there, because once it's like this I tend to uninstall and forget the title...

It depends. I like Open World games that feel like there's a purpose to them being Open World.

Like the Elder Scrolls. The point is for you to feel like you're living in Tamriel. There's a point to it being Open World.

Or Far Cry (which I admittedly haven't played), where you're supposed to be lost in some place, deep in a place that is hostile to you.

And I might get crucified for this, but I honestly feel like the first Breath of the Wild game had no real reason to be Open World. The second one? Yeah, they figured it out. But the first one feels like it was OW just to be OW.

Tl;Dr, the game has to have a reason to be OW. Otherwise they're just aiming for quantity of content and poitnlessly hurting the quality.

Ni!

I like them, I prefer sandbox games over linear ones. I think it's the sandbox nature of the game that matters more than open world though.

I hit a wall recently with Star Wars Outlaws. The open world is cool until you realize that every enemy base has two or three possible entry points, complete with yellow-painted paths. There's no room for creative infiltration - either you do it Ubisoft's way, or it isn't possible in the game. The NPCs in the open world just drive around aimlessly. It doesn't feel like anyone in the world is trying to achieve anything besides you. It makes me realize how far we have come with modern open world games like the recent Zelda games. Without room for emergent gameplay, an open world feels like little more than a framing device for a game that is actually linear.

As long as it's a bit of a sandbox: hell yeah. But there needs to be stuff happening, things to do. I love games like GTA, Cyberpunk, Just Cause, Stalker, because you can just go around the world and experience random stuff happening. Sometimes I don't want a goal, but just a sandbox to create my own stories.

Mostly nay. I am not against open-world in premise, but most open-world games do it poorly. I think that a lot of studios make their games open world because these types of games are popular, but don't give a thought to what that means for their specific game. They want their worlds to seem expansive and think this is an easy solution but it isn't.

If you make an open-world game, it needs at the very least two things: a compelling method of traversal (mechanics of interacting with that open world), and thoughtful, intentional design (not just large stretches of trees and rocks between towns). I think Breath of the Wild is a paragon of good open-world design.

I find the opposite. I love video games, always have, but these days my time is more limited, I might go months without touching them, and I just play to relax. So over the past 10 years or whatever, things like GTAV, Fallout 4, and AC:Odyssey have worked out really well for me. I can pick them up whenever I want and either settle in for some story or just waste time exploring, doing side quests, finding collectibles.

Like what would I rather do in real life? Work toward a single goal day after day, or see what's on top of that mountain over there just because?

If an open world is just there for collectibles/unlocks or just feels otherwise unnecessary to the primary selling feature of the game (like story), then yeah its a hard pass.

Otherwise, if the open world is actually a core part of the game like in most MMO's such as Old School Runescape, then it can be quite enjoyable.

I like open world games when the time I spend simply being in them without any explicit objective is enjoyable. If I’m thinking “I’m bored, where’s the next task?” then there’s a problem. If I’m thinking “I wonder if I can make a boat that operates by paddling instead of using a fan…” then we’re good.

(Tears of the Kingdom’s physics don’t work that way, I’m sorry to report. Thing flailed around like it was drowning.)

I only really like STALKER I think, because it's generally compressed and dense rather than stretching out over nothingness. It's technically multiple levels than being overworld I guess.

I didn't get Breath of the Wild.

Is the openworld meant for exploring, like pre-Starfield Bethesda game? Yeah i love those.

Is the openworld crafted only for wasting player time, like Ubisoft game? Nah.

Is the openworld crafted as a backstage for the main story but also can be explored, like GTA franchise or dying light? Yeah, those are nice.

Is the openworld only used as a backstage for the main story that doesn't encourage exploration because it conflict with player urgency, like Metro Exodus? I'd rather not.

You don’t have to do everything in an open world game. Just go from main mission to main mission and you’ve pretty much turned it in to a linear game.

open world is great if the world is interesting to explore

Depends on the game. I'm still a very long ways away from completing it, so please no spoilers, but Sonic Frontiers? They added enough to the open world that it's fun to run around and do side stuff in. Pokemon Violet? The charm wore out quick enough, making the region feel way too empty compared to most other gens, so no. No clue on the DLC, but I imagine they're similarly as empty and devoid of NPCs as well. Games like VoxeLibre on Luanti? Wouldn't want it any other way!

Yes for good games like stalker with it's incredible, unmatched alife or arma where the large world serves a purpose or gta and red dead with it's detail.

No to terrible checklist games where the formula is copy pasted across series and not backed up by good ai or good worlds, only with timewasters and checklists, eg ubisoft.

Personlly ive ended up dropping witcher 3 and elden ring thanks to open worlds but for some reason cyberpunk works for me.

I love an open world game that is done well - Horizon: Zero Dawn, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. But so often it is just done because thats what they think is the hot thing, and it does not work

I tend to agree, open world is becoming just a box to tick off for AAA developers, which means it just gets put in as filler basically. Halo Infinite is the worst example I can think of. However I do think there are 2 ways open world can be justified: if the world is just packed so full of interesting stuff that the game just gets huge, or if the way of traversing that world is fun.

Category 1 would be games like Morrowind, Skyrim , Fallout 4, or even Mass Effect on a smaller scale. There's just so much to do that it becomes an open world on its own. Category 2 would be games like the Arkham series , Assassins Creed, or Forza Horizon, where getting from point A to point B is fun on its own.

Open world is great when it's done right, but since when has Ubisoft or EA made a good game in the past 10 years?

Days Gone is well designed and balanced. The map isn't overly large. If you just follow the quests you pretty much go everywhere anyway. I highly recommend you just give it a go. It's a great game!

Generally nay I think. There are a few I enjoy like Minecraft or Space Engineers.

But in general open world is just more annoying to deal with.

I like the idea of open world games. In practice it depends entirely on the execution, and amount of free time I have. I enjoyed the hell out of Cyberpunk 2077, but have zero desire to play GTA6 or the latest Ubisoft snoozefest.

Nay, but I have a few exceptions:

FFXV really benefits from the open world and never felt copy pasted like most others.

Outer Wilds (if that counts) could obviously only exist with a continuous map.

While I dislike most open world games, I don't think it's an issue with the open world itself, but with how shallow the games end up being as they all copy the same formula and they all seem afraid to hide "content" from you, so exploration gets trivialized.

If yet another game comes out where the core mechanic is climbing a tower to reveal the area, I might scream.

it depends on the content. a linear story should absolutely not be open world.

A survival sandbox literally can't be anything else.

I think the term "open world" is mostly meaningless these days. Skyrim, for example, is called an open world game. But... It's not? At least not by the definition that "open world" originally meant, which literally was just a continuous game world with no loading screens between areas.

Now it just kinda means "game with big outside map." Unless I can walk into a building without seeing a load screen, I don't consider it to be truly open world.

Dark Souls is a true open world game, even though it's not big or has vast open fields, while, again, Skyrim is not because going into a cave, or a house, or even a major city, requires loading a new level, breaking up the world.

Open world games don't hold me, because ironically, they tend to feel too small. When you can walk from one side of the setting to the other in real time, it all feels small.

I prefer when the "world" is smaller scale like the Yakuza series for example.

Otherwise, I will immediately get distracted and 100% will never even get close to finishing the main quest.

Nay. Too many distractions or boring tropes of open world games.

I am on a mission to go from a to b. I pick up all items or resources I can along the way. I encounter enemy x often and enemy y not so often. It’s ok for certain types of games but can become tedious after repetition.

@Azrael

Yay in my case (including Ubi open world games).

I play them because I enjoy them. You can normally pick out the main storyline and just follow that.

Personally I just play a long game over the course of a couple of years.

The ol Ubisoft formula? Yeah - I enjoy sprinkling them in to my gaming.

Easy to pick up. Only got a bit of time? Go unlock some area or marker. Got a longer amount of time? Make progress towards the main quest. That with achievements gives me a list of short and long goals I can work towards.

Funny that you mention it. I usually play an open world game in parallel with a heavier on rails RPG/CRPG – and opt for the open world game when I want a more “brain off” session.

Nay, unless it's done by CDProjekt (The Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk 2077)

I'm a huge open world and/or sandbox nut. Non-linearity is my jam. Kenshi, Rimworld, AssOdyssey/Shadows, Project Zomboid, Witcher 3, X4...

Don't get me wrong, I love a good story, but story takes many shapes, and not all stories are pre-written; plenty are emergent. I grew up playing with Legos (and still do), and me making whatever story I wanted (or that emerged along the way) was part of the appeal.

Honestly, apart from FF8 and TW3, and now Expedition 33, I haven't found many games with written stories that grabbed me. I read books when I want that fulfillingly-crafted linearity.

I only like open world games when I can really immerse myself into roleplaying. Oblivion and FFXI (if that counts) were perfect for this style of playing. Most open world games just don't hit the mark, unfortunately, and I'd rather play a linear game that feels like reading a good book.