Open world games are being designed like theme parks and it sucks

[Legend]

They build these amazing looking worlds and fill them with tons of interesting enemies. Every section of the park map has lots of fun things to do.

Come back later though and everything has reset. NPCs are back to their locations for meet and greets, enemies have respawned at their arenas to put on the next show, and bosses/dungeons are ever present as you do other things.

It offers incredible moment to moment gameplay but it feels like a wizard of oz illusion. Many good games work like this (Destiny helped popularize it) but I think only a single game has ever pulled it off.

Spoiler for Hidden:

Breath of the wild yo!<br>

In these games time effectively stands still. Players can progress without the world progressing.

Linear games are the antithesis to this. Pre RPG mechanics being thrown in everything, world progression was the only thing possible. Something like Uncharted 2 is amazing to play for lots of reasons but feeling like the adventure is your adventure is one of them.



The Witcher 3 is a good example of an open world game that doesn't exclusively use the theme park approach. So many of its quests cause meaningful impacts on the world and NPCs. It's open world but it plays like a linear game with optional chapters.

[kitler53]

sure.  but why is that a bad thing?

do you want the world to be empty and pointless after you mass murder everyone?  what fun would that be?  that was the worst part of games like infamous second son that,.. once you "progressed the world" by claiming a territory the world was empty and pointless and funless.

it is a "game" or a "toy".   stop trying to infect games with adherness to "reality".

[BananaKing]

sure.  but why is that a bad thing?

do you want the world to be empty and pointless after you mass murder everyone?  what fun would that be?  that was the worst part of games like infamous second son that,.. once you "progressed the world" by claiming a territory the world was empty and pointless and funless.

it is a "game" or a "toy".   stop trying to infect games with adherness to "reality".

Its not that. As the story progresses, everything else in the world doesnt. It stays still. While the idea if missing side quests because you progressed in the story sucks, that result in the side quests being severed from the story and world building that goes on.  That means any section or aspect of the map is also tied and to remain still with that side quest  

[the-pi-guy]

sure.  but why is that a bad thing?

It's bad because it makes the world feel dead.
Nothing ever changes, your actions don't really have consequences.  The villagers don't have any agency.  They just feel like props.  

do you want the world to be empty and pointless after you mass murder everyone?  what fun would that be?  that was the worst part of games like infamous second son that,.. once you "progressed the world" by claiming a territory the world was empty and pointless and funless.

Eh that was part of inFamous's game design.  Not fundamental to what Legend is talking about.  

Some games have tried to make the enemies more alive.  

Like the Shadow of Mordor games.  When you killed your enemies, they wouldn't just respawn where they were.  Instead they'd get replaced by a new enemy that moved into the same location.  

it is a "game" or a "toy".   stop trying to infect games with adherness to "reality".

A game doesn't need to do anything.  

But some of us want to see games do more things.  

[Legend]

sure.  but why is that a bad thing?

do you want the world to be empty and pointless after you mass murder everyone?  what fun would that be?  that was the worst part of games like infamous second son that,.. once you "progressed the world" by claiming a territory the world was empty and pointless and funless.

it is a "game" or a "toy".   stop trying to infect games with adherness to "reality".

Progress doesn't mean a lack of enemies. It just means the world isn't frozen in time.

Here's a stupidly simple example. Make a boss get stronger for every side activity you do before facing them. They aren't just standing around waiting on you, they are stocking up and preparing for battle.

[kitler53]

Progress doesn't mean a lack of enemies. It just means the world isn't frozen in time.

Here's a stupidly simple example. Make a boss get stronger for every side activity you do before facing them. They aren't just standing around waiting on you, they are stocking up and preparing for battle.

then what's the point of having side missions.  the point of side missions is to "make progress".  if the enemies/bosses you fight don't get easier as you get stronger then you aren't making progress. 

Its not that. As the story progresses, everything else in the world doesnt. It stays still. While the idea if missing side quests because you progressed in the story sucks, that result in the side quests being severed from the story and world building that goes on.  That means any section or aspect of the map is also tied and to remain still with that side quest 

but what kind of progress?  do mountains crumble?  to cities burn to the ground? 

mostly what you legend called out in the OP is that every time you go back to an area the enemies "restage for the next show".   short of permadeath for NPC that's just how it's going to be.   if NPC don't return return to their locations for "meet and greet" then their quests won't be available and you'll lose the ability to play those side quests.

I think what you are asking for is that a game developer build out 10,000 side quests knowing that you'll only play 100 of them so that each and every side quest can feel like it was influenced by previous decisions in your game.   sound ridiculously expensive to build by hand or it sound entirely blandly procedural.


i'm going to fault you for wanting what you want,.. but it is not feasible.

[the-pi-guy]

then what's the point of having side missions.  the point of side missions is to "make progress".  if the enemies/bosses you fight don't get easier as you get stronger then you aren't making progress.  

The sole purpose of side quests isn't to level up...

The Elder Scrolls games don't pack the world with quests for the sole purpose of leveling up.  
A lot of these games are designed to be alternative realities. I totally understand that you don't play games for that reason, but a lot of people do.

I think what you are asking for is that a game developer build out 10,000 side quests knowing that you'll only play 100 of them so that each and every side quest can feel like it was influenced by previous decisions in your game.   sound ridiculously expensive to build by hand or it sound entirely blandly procedural.

Not necessarily.
Legend's example was something easy to do.

Adding gameplay elements like Legend is talking about is something a lot of game devs want to do.

Games like Skyrim in particular are trying to make world's that feel alive.