What do you think of open worlds?

johnny_ultimate

Let me just stress first that I think many open world games offer some of the most magnificently realised gameworlds out there. Games like GTAV and The Witcher 3 are uniquely detailed, 'alive' worlds, that both on a technical and artistic level impress and surprise in many ways.

But as open worlds become more and more common, less of a novelty than they were a long time ago, arguably even 'the norm', I think I'm growing a bit frustrated with them. It's weird because in many ways these games are growing ever more dynamic, dense and detailed, but at the same time feel like they're stuck on a treadmill in other ways, a world away from truly 'open' titles like Minecraft.

Mostly, across almost all open world games, I feel there can be something of an inefficiency of design. A lot, if not almost all of them, have tonnes of quests, gameplay mechanics, characters and systems that can serve to significantly dilute the overall experience. Mini-maps are increasingly full of question marks and stuff to do, but very often they don't offer anything fundamentally new or unexpected. In worst case scenarios - most Ubisoft games - there's little to uncover other than more busy work (there to me is no value whatsoever in repeating the same basic mission with minor variations a dozen times).

This, at worst, can create games that demand a whole lot of our time, perhaps even waste them - they can be massively time intensive games when there are ever increasing amounts of fascinating titles looking for our attention. And, for games that are so 'open', many of them feel like a load of closed off smaller spaces rather than huge maps that can be fully taken advantage of (most obvious in 'campaign' quests).

To be fair to The Witcher 3 and GTA V, their main quests (and even many of the sub ones), regularly offer substance of both a narrative and gameplay kind. But in many ways they suffer from both the strengths and limits of open world design. There's little sense of pace or tension to the overall stories when it feels so fragmented across an incredibly large map, and key mechanics can feel jarringly underutilised or underdeveloped when they're so sparsely used (horse riding, for example). Other games can fare far worse in that regard (I'll suggest Ubisoft again). One could argue you could just pursue the main quests in a relatively linear manner if that is your wont, but these sort of games seem designed to actively discourage such a thing, throwing an endless selection of distractions at you and often locking off worthwhile content - be it weapons, power-ups or even substantial narrative content - behind arbitrary demands (cougharkhamcitycough). In open-world RPGs this can be amplified when the game locks off content behind level-limits that ultimately require some level of grinding.

I'm acutely aware that many of these complaints are basically flipsides of many of the very same arguments to be made for open world design. But with more and more franchises and individual titles rushing towards open world design - from racing games to RPGs to action titles and many different variations in between - it to me feels like a considerable majority of these games share a lot of baggage they have yet to shake off. That's turning me off all but the most exceptional of these games, and driving me towards much more focused experiences (especially as somebody interested in the evolution of gaming narratives). I confess I have little enthusiasm for Arkham Knight as a result, because a lot of what I've read suggests it falls victim to open world excess despite its strengths. But wondering what others think?

Just to close off this, I'd argue a few games have achieved a nice compromise. That's games like Zelda or Dark Souls, that offer relatively freeform worlds but with tightly designed 'levels' that nonetheless link up in often surprising and satisfying ways. I think these sort of games end up having more focus while also giving the player freedom to explore at their own pace and leisure. What IMO would be interesting to see would be a major open world game that would be happy to split the 'campaign' and 'free roam' modes, like Driver 2 did back in the day, and offer individual players the best of both (open and closed) worlds.

Generic Dreadhead

I've been awaiting the Great Open World debate for a while now.

Honestly, I feel like it's becoming a Poison Chalice now as many clued in gamers will read "Open World" as "Fetch Quests"

Where it works best is when you are limited in some respects, either by accessible areas (such as the 3D GTA games) or by claiming territory (Far Cry style)

The problem is, in my opinion, is with games going "Too Big" like GTA San Andreas and Far Cry 4, the previous entries in both series were Open World but felt well contained and managed to not feel overwhelming.

Nowadays, it's the Golden Goose of the industry. Theres' a time and a place for open-worldness as there is for linear games. But there's a lot of square pegs being rammed into round holes now.

I just feel like there should be a guy (or girl calm down Anita Heineken) hired to stand in most AAA studios at the door shouting "Open World =/= Massive World".

Look at Bioshock 1 and 2 and the Older Resi Evil games.... some openness without going to far.... that being said I guess I wouldn't really class them as Open World as they are mainly indoors

Nowadays when I see "Open World" on a game I narrow my eyes ever so slightly.... take that games industry! How'd you like them apples!

Zillah

I have very strong opinions on this topic, and I've stated them here a few times before:

Zillah wrote: »

I desperately miss Half Life's unique combination of high production values, action gameplay, highly scripted and polished linear first person shooting, and awesome sci-fi storytelling.

Fuck Far Cry and its collect fifteen badgers and have the same fight fifty times gameplay. I'm totally sick of open worlds and their high-volume, low-quality content. The Half Life series (+the Portals) has been some of the best fun:time ratio gaming I've ever had. No need to try and find the diamond in the rough, it's all bloody great.

Oblivion/Skyrim got boring fast because I realised however far I went, what I found there was just going to be more of the same. And as much as I like Minecraft, it's the same feeling. Sure, I can wander for fifty miles, but it'll all be the same as where I left.

I want unique content, not the same assets spread out over vast areas. I want tension and pacing, not drudgery.

Basically if I can't imagine Gandalf doing it then I don't want it:

• Battling a demon? Sure!
• Back-strafing from randomly spawned bears in the woods? No thanks.
• Delving into a deep mine to retrieve an item of global importance? Great.
• Helping a farmer round up sixteen missing sheep? Don't think so.
• Dueling an enemy general in defence of a fortress? Sounds fun.
• Collecting 15 herbs for the nameless apothecary? Nope.

Sometimes I feel insulted that a developer thinks I have so little to do with my life that forty minutes gathering rocks in the terrain for a random NPC is worth my time. It would probably take me more time to complete it than it took him to code it.

Witcher 3 is a recent one but also a poor example for me as it was so well crafted it didn't suffer as much as others in it's class, where there is so much to see and do outside of the main story, and you spend so long away from it you could be forgiven for stopping and wondering what the hell you were trying do and why you trying to save the world and why was it in trouble to begin with ...... It's happened me a couple of times over the years.

Pet hate in open world games is the copy/paste of objectives over multiple areas like ..... and I'll likely get lynched here .... Crackdown games and Just Cause 2 where the developers went to the trouble of crafting really interesting worlds only to populate them with the same set of objectives on 5 or 6 islands. I went back to JC2 last week as it was free on games with gold and it's actually even more repetitive than I remembered, sure theres mayhem a plenty.

There was a game I had in mind and it's escaped me now, where I recall thinking what a waste the world was , as there was absolutely noting to do in it. I'll edit later when I pull my head out of my backside and remember what that game was.... can't have been a good one :pac:

Agree with Cormac regards size , I could probably still find my way or give directions to someone for GTA3 and Vice City , those really were perfect in terms of size. My view is if you have space and areas in an open world game use them !!!! Ok I know a lot has to be there to make the world believable to a degree but be creative with the world you've made!!!!!

Randall Floyd

I'm playing the Witcher 3 at the moment and I think it does open world better than anything else I've played.

To be honest I now find myself actively avoiding most open world games because I have the perception that most are very heavily padded with repetitive side quests and collectibles, one of the reasons I'm not pushed about the new Batman game, I've been there and done that.

K.O.Kiki

The only open-world game I've ever enjoyed was Dragon's Dogma, and I only started enjoying it when I realised I should stop dicking around with the Fetch/Kill quests and just have them unlock as an aside to my main objective of killing dragons.

I'll have to get around to Witcher 2 soon.

tailgunner

Games that are sold as "open world" are generally not for me. There are some exceptions of course - GTA V had an enormous map but it was filled with so many things to do that you didn't even notice the size of it. In contrast, the overwhelming, endless emptiness of Shadow of the Colossus was as much a formidable antagonist as any one of the colossi.

For me, the best games are those that create the illusion of an open world. Basically, I want to be forced into following a very linear path, while being duped into believing I have some sort of choice in the matter. Maybe it was because I was young and stupid impressionable at the time, but the first time I played through Half-Life 2, I felt like I was only getting anywhere due to sheer luck.

Penn

It's the journey, not the destination. This is especially true when it comes to open world games. So long as travelling from place to place isn't a chore, then I have no problem with open world games.

The problem is when travelling becomes boring, repetitive or you're just traversing the same bits of land over and over again, back and forth, back and forth. I loved all the climbing etc in earlier Assassin's Creed games, but I especially found in AC:Unity that I just couldn't be arsed climbing up and down buildings all over again. But likewise running through the streets was no fun at all. Shadow of Mordor was fairly quick to travel around but the landscape was fairly bland for the most part. I enjoyed flying around Arkham City, but especially when going for all the trophies/riddles, you end up grappling onto the same buildings taking the same path back and forth, back and forth.

It can be hard to balance everything. Have travelling be enjoyable itself, keeping the environment interesting, having various means and routes for travel, and make people want to explore even after the story is finished.

Zillah

tailgunner wrote: »

For me, the best games are those that create the illusion of an open world.

That's a really good observation. HL2 did a great job of making me feel like there was a massive and open world in which I could get lost, despite the fact that I was relentlessly following a scripted path. Best way to play a game in my opinion.

Stone Deaf 4evr

I'm a bit burned out on them tbh, these days I'll only give time to the cream of the crop - GTA5 and The Witcher 3, and Hopefully Fallout 4.

I've avoided watchdogs and the last few Assassins creed games as i just couldn't be arsed all the faffing about.

Far Cry 3 and 4 Though were both pretty good, in that the open world dictated how you tackle the obstacles in your path.

Bad Horse

Bad Horse wrote: »

It's the journey, not the destination. This is especially true when it comes to open world games. So long as travelling from place to place isn't a chore, then I have no problem with open world games.

The problem is when travelling becomes boring, repetitive or you're just traversing the same bits of land over and over again, back and forth, back and forth. I loved all the climbing etc in earlier Assassin's Creed games, but I especially found in AC:Unity that I just couldn't be arsed climbing up and down buildings all over again. But likewise running through the streets was no fun at all. Shadow of Mordor was fairly quick to travel around but the landscape was fairly bland for the most part. I enjoyed flying around Arkham City, but especially when going for all the trophies/riddles, you end up grappling onto the same buildings taking the same path back and forth, back and forth.

It can be hard to balance everything. Have travelling be enjoyable itself, keeping the environment interesting, having various means and routes for travel, and make people want to explore even after the story is finished.

Yeah, thats a great way to put it indeed.

YouSavedMyLife

I think Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas did the open world gameplay very well. It didn't have quest markers and points of interest on a world map, instead the world was there to be explored and stumbling upon random events, quests or NPC interactions was some on the best moments in gaming that i had. This feeling of exploration is the most satisfying thing about open world games and very few games do it.

Generic Dreadhead

YouSavedMyLife wrote: »

I think Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 did the open world gameplay very well.

Well la-di-dah Mr.Future-Man

Retr0gamer

I'm not really a big fan of open world games. I've just always preferred tightly designed games where each challenge is a puzzle or skill based challenge set by a designer that the player must figure out and overcome. It's basically the player versus the designer. It's why games like Dark Souls, Super Metroid or Bayonetta have always appealed to me. They have meticulously designed challenges.

The problem with open world games for me is that emergent gameplay doesn't will never provide that same meticulous design as a game were the designer has more control over encounters. However emergent gameplay does have it's own positives and there's been plenty of open world games that I loved because of emergent gameplay, games like the better hitman games, Minecraft and Crackdown.

My problem with new games like Assassin's Creed and the latest GTA games is that they try to be both emergent and designed. Once you begin the mission the world resets and becomes scripted. All emergent elements are removed and you are left with missions that are designed but are really poor due to the compromises elsewhere in the game. GTA for instance has always had ropey combat and movement but everything else compensates for it. Once you change GTA to something that resembles a linear 3rd person shooter it becomes a ****ty third person shooter. GTA3 is probably the closest that series has gotten to emergent with the world not becoming linear and the random elements still in place for missions meaning most missions could be broken out of the critical path by the player and it was a huge amount of fun to do so in the same way it's fun to break the combat systems in Final Fantasy V or Tactics. Crackdown is the same, you have a target to kill but your approach to that target is not something set in stone.

I think game developers need to be much more confident in their open world and their emergent systems and how they play off each other otherwise you end up with something like Elder Scrolls where the fun is exploring the world because, lets face it, Bethesda's quest design is dire.

johnny_ultimate

A lot of open world games illustrate a conflict between the lust for authored content and player driven content (even if said content has to be authored in the first place :pac:). 'Linear' seems to have become sort of a dirty word for a lot of people, players and developers alike, but I have to be honest and say I still want an 'author' to guide my way through the game, and I want to know what they have to say. A lot of that I feel gets lost or at best diluted in a world full of trinkets and distractions. It can still be there - nobody would doubt something like GTAV has its own identity - but adherence to the open world 'formula' often means that voice is drowned out for huge chunks of the playing time.

Not that players shouldn't be given the opportunity to be creative and experiment, and yeah that's where many of the true open world titles excel. But it's the limbo that exists in the current prominent form that can feel decidedly unsatisfying (whereas the illusion of freedom, as in Half-Life 2, can be incredibly thrilling). I'd absolutely agree it's usually the likes of Saints Row or Just Cause that struggle the most in that regard - for games with the most theoretically insane possibilities, they're usually the ones that feel oldest fast with mission design and 'content' that simply does not live up to the potential.

Above all I think a designer should ask a few questions when placing content markers in an open world. Does it genuinely offer the player something new or surprising? Does it push the mechanics in a new direction? Or is it just filling out a massive map with stuff? If it's the latter, then they're probably just wasting everybody's time. Are there any open world games out there that would genuinely feel lesser with significant amounts of the content hacked off? I'd argue there's a tonne that would feel noticeably better.

Sephiroth_dude

I love open world games, I love exploring , Fallout 3 is probably my favourite open world game for the sheer randomness of events that I came across and I just loved exploring the wasteland, then there was dragons dogma amd witcher 3 , I wasn't too fond of skyrims world or new vegas , they both felt really shallow and very scripted.

Robert ninja

^ Although NV had way less interesting exploration, it was much less scripted.

Allow to post this page-distorting (thanks boards for no auto sizing) picture as an explanation

AbusesToilets

That would be one of my biggest criticisms of a lot of the open world/ persistent world type games I've played. The player's actions have little permanent impact of his world. Take Skyrim as a recent example. I could simultaneously be the head of the Thieves Guild, Nightingales, Assassin's Guild, College of Mages, Dragonborn etc etc. Yet none of that was reflected in the game world, and didn't change in any large part the interactions I had with NPCs. That's the sort of thing that pulled me out of any immersion in the game's world.

Robert ninja

^ A real good way to combat that is to make the player character entirely insignificant to the world at large. That doesn't mean you don't have an 'epic' story... but it's contained. I think The Witcher does this pretty well. You're a big deal... but only to your own story and stuff related to you. There's no particular reason why anyone should care or even know about you outside of the path you're following or your social circles.

It's also nice to just not be the center of attention all the time and actually feel smaller in the world. Instant-gratification power-trip open world games are the meh-iest type of game I can think of.

Retr0gamer

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That would be one of my biggest criticisms of a lot of the open world/ persistent world type games I've played. The player's actions have little permanent impact of his world. Take Skyrim as a recent example. I could simultaneously be the head of the Thieves Guild, Nightingales, Assassin's Guild, College of Mages, Dragonborn etc etc. Yet none of that was reflected in the game world, and didn't change in any large part the interactions I had with NPCs. That's the sort of thing that pulled me out of any immersion in the game's world.

I know a lot of people that want to complete everything in a game got annoyed with quests being locked out due to actions in New Vegas but it's one of the things I loved about it. Your actions had consequences, no matter what you choose you were locking out a part of the game so you really had to role play it and choose the actions you or your character would take. Fallout 3 just felt dead to me in comparison, it was a much bigger map than New Vegas but there was so little to do and often locations you discovered had nothing interesting in them.

steve_r

Some great points on the thread so far.
I gave Fallout 3 a go, spent a while traveling around without knowing where to go (which was a refreshing change), collected a lot of pointless stuff and then got killed too quickly in areas out of my depth. I really feel I should give it a go but maybe New Vegas is more for me?

I’m a time-poor gamer, so a linear, level structure works for me. Even good games like Red Dead redemption frustrated me with how long it took to travel around. I got bored with the AC series as the novelty of running up buildings wore off.

If you have the time to spend, it can be amazing exploring a vast world but sadly there’s a lot of filler.

I played the Bioshock series through recently – I probably would have thought twice about that if it was open world as it would have took a lot longer to do.
There’s generally a trade-off between volume of content and quantity – I know I have limited gaming time so I’ll lean towards the more confined adventures.

Right Turn Clyde

I used to think I loved open-world games, particularly RPGs, but I've failed to complete about 90% of those that I've played. So that speaks to my true feelings on that matter.

I took a break from gaming for a few years, and when I returned recently I was very excited about huge open worlds like Far Cry 4 and The Witcher 3. But I now know that these games just aren't for me. My main issue is with the repetitive nature of the quests and spot challenges that pop-up around the map. They just offer the same thing over and over again. Quantity over quality. The new Arkham game looks frankly unplayable because of how much it jams in there.

I'm simply not paying money for these games anymore. They're very badly thought out. I know what I really like and I don't care that they're not at the cutting edge of 'emergent' technologies (I like reading about that stuff in EDGE, but that's it!).

I prefer games like Uncharted, The Last of Us, Tomb Raider and Wolfenstein. I want 12-15 hours of, as Retrogamer put it, me vs the developer. I don't want 40-200 hours of me versus a team of unruly statisticians.

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I know a lot of people that want to complete everything in a game got annoyed with quests being locked out due to actions in New Vegas but it's one of the things I loved about it. Your actions had consequences, no matter what you choose you were locking out a part of the game so you really had to role play it and choose the actions you or your character would take. Fallout 3 just felt dead to me in comparison, it was a much bigger map than New Vegas but there was so little to do and often locations you discovered had nothing interesting in them.

Hmm I wouldn't agree fully here.
Fallout 3 provided me with some of best gaming moments I can remember (And the below two I only discovered 2 weeks ago even though I have pumped probably 200-300 hours into the game through multiple play-troughs since 2008)

First was

Walking into a Town where everyone seemed happy as pie, a Quest activated and it turns out that they were cannibals

Also tenpenny tower had multiple outcomes all of which effected what factions were still available come the time the quest completes

I even saved the Ghouls and had them live with the humans in the tower, came back about 5 hours later everyone was dead except the gouls, a glorious moment IMO

johnny_ultimate

A brief opinion piece on this issue over on Kotaku: http://kotaku.com/some-games-should-have-fewer-features-1715621736 (that AC: Unity screenshot is terrifying).

I haven't actually played Arkham Knight yet and have no great urge to because I really fear it embraces many design trends I'm not fond of. Although I've read one or two people argue it's a bit more focused and organic than its peers. Thoughts of anybody who played it? I know there are a few posters in the main thread who seemed burned out by the end - especially since the 'true ending' only unlocks once all the sidequests are finished.

Right Turn Clyde

This month's EDGE magazine features a preview of Metal Gear Solid V. The author said that the game is gloriously open-world, but during certain missions the player is forced into 'corridors' of playable area, i.e. invisible walls of one form or another. Frankly, I'm delighted to hear it, and the author seemed to feel the same.

Right Turn Clyde

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Although I've read one or two people argue it's a bit more focused and organic than its peers.

That's pretty much what EDGE said as well. I'm still not tempted though.

Retr0gamer

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

This month's EDGE magazine features a preview of Metal Gear Solid V. The author said that the game is gloriously open-world, but during certain missions the player is forced into 'corridors' of playable area, i.e. invisible walls of one form or another. Frankly, I'm delighted to hear it, and the author seemed to feel the same.

All I'm hearing from Journalists about MGSV after the 20 hour previews is that it's utterly glorious. Can't wait to get my hands on it. It's meant to follow in the footsteps if Peace Walker which was amazing and not the rubbish of MGS4.

Right Turn Clyde

Like many people, I didn't even complete MGS4. It bored me to tears. Kojima should have just pissed off and made a movie, because that's all he wanted to achieve. But this new baby looks like the real deal. I'm giddy with excitement.

Skerries

Retr0gamer wrote: »

and not the rubbish of MGS4.

just accept it into your heart, let the hate flow out and you will be on your way to gaming nirvana

wotzgoingon

I actually like open world games. I don't buy and play all them. I don't have Witcher 3 or Batman Knight.

I cannot stress how much I like the Borderlands series all 3 of them with DLC's they are such good games. I was also late playing them i only played them in the last 7 months so they are still fresh in my mind. I cannot wait till the next one in the series come along.

marco_polo

Funnily enough even though it was a small enough map I found the second batman to be one of the worst offenders when it comes to having nothing interesting do outside the main quests have avoided the subsequent sequels as a result.

For me especially as I get on a bit in years I much prefer a shorter well scripted story, preferably with the illusion of a larger world (Games like Mass Effect sequels, dishonored, Deus Ex HR, Tomb Raider, Bioshock HL2 spring to mind).

Not sure in recent years if I have just become jaded with them (FO3 and NV I really enjoyed and sank many many hours into, I think in those cases I enjoyed the athmosphere/backdrop so much I could forgive the repeditiveness flaws, for some reason I can't quite put my finger on,I could never cut Skyrim the same slack despite all the similsrities). Of the last 3 open world games I have started I have lost all interest within say 10-15 hours or so (Skyrim/FC4 and Watch Dogs).

Will make an exception for FO4 because I am a big fan, but outside of nothing looks like tempting me again in the near future outside of maybe the Witcher 3 at some point(after finishing the other two first)

Smegball

GTA3 is the best open world game I've played. I was truly immersed and the perfect sized map let me discover so many nook and crannies. Unbelievable game. Vice City & San Andreas didn't grab me in the same way - although they were great games in their own right.

Aimead

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Take Skyrim as a recent example. I could simultaneously be the head of the Thieves Guild, Nightingales, Assassin's Guild, College of Mages, Dragonborn etc etc. Yet none of that was reflected in the game world, and didn't change in any large part the interactions I had with NPCs. That's the sort of thing that pulled me out of any immersion in the game's world.

The bizarre thing is that Bethesda had done much much better than this in their earlier Morrowind. Often you had missions for one faction that involved fecking over another faction, and it totally changed the dynamics of the game for the better. Little things like how the Ordinators would go ape if you were wearing their armour all added to the feel of the world in which it was set.

I’ve been recent replaying Morrowind and I continued to be surprised with the extent they let the ball drop with Skyrim. In Morrowind you would often be given directions to a location, and the journey trying to find a location felt like a proper bit of exploration. In Skyrim everything is ‘follow-the-compass-arrow’ and generally over-simplistic. The fast travel system in Morrowind was a real part of its charm imo, and added to the feeling of having a whole world to explore. That feeling just isn’t there in Skyrim.

Another example that springs to mind is to compare Thief 2 and Thief 3. Thief 3 was quasi-open-world, and yet the whole thing was a disaster. Even though Thief 2 wasn’t as open, there were levels like when you had to cross the city to get to the mechanists tower that had a real feel of exploring.

For a game like Thief 2 it seems the scripting came first and the world was built around that (maybe, or idle speculation). The set-pieces and overheard conversations in Thief 2 dragged you into that world (the bear fighting and the “your lady was out the back warming up the stable boy” being some favourites). That just didn’t happened with Thief 3. It was almost like they built the Thief 3 world and struggled to try and fill it with meaningful and coherent content.

There is something bizarre with older titles like Morrowind and Thief 2 managing to make a feeling of enjoyable exploration in a way their successors failed at. With both I think the issue was more due to the game being stripped down to appeal to the lowest common denominator with the open-world attempt faltering as a result.

Solitaire

Robert ninja wrote: »

^ Although NV had way less interesting exploration, it was much less scripted.

Allow to post this page-distorting (thanks boards for no auto sizing) picture as an explanation

<snipped due to sheer size>

Aimead wrote: »

The bizarre thing is that Bethesda had done much much better than this in their earlier Morrowind.

I loved Fallout 3 but the many criticisms made here are entirely valid and at times it feels like it, Oblivion and Skyrim are practically the same game with different texture packs on top

But it really does beg the question... did Obsidian ghost-write Morrowind? :eek: It really carries far more of their design DNA than any of its own descendants - I still find it amazing how the much smaller playable area boasted so much more actual content!

Digression aside, though, it really does seem that with clever design less is more, and in the case of fickle triple-As overegging the pudding, more often ends up being less Different games have different objectives and narrative styles and often need different level design and progression techniques in order to make the most of the underlying plot; open-world elements can enhance many games but not all of them, and even then there's many different types of progression system and scales of "open" you needed to choose from, as making the right choices, often very early in a game's development cycle, can make or break the pacing and immersion of the whole title. It depends on what you're trying to achieve, but usually you have to have region unlocks, gear checks and heavily scripted instances to pull a careening player back onto the rails and give their open-world mayhem some context and a frame of reference to work from.

Borderlands 1/2 are about as open-world as any other dungeon crawler (which they are, guns notwithstanding). Sure you can go back to old areas, but only for a very good reason as the regular content is underlevelled compared to you and thus no longer relevant to your phat lewt requirements. Its somehow open-world and linear at the same time, which is rather awesome. As for Just Cause 2... really, this game is basically a slightly more brutal and marginally less ludicrous Goat Simulator. Forget about the objectives, its all about the idiocy that ensues from the mayhem that you get up to. There's a reason why people are reverse-engineering half the game just to hack in multiplayer... its gone down something of a different evolutionary path to the rather more po-faced TES and Far Cry open-worlds.

dreamers75

Open world only really works when the world is interesting and part of the game.

GTA for instance you can stalk people who in places, kill them and then stalk their replacement.

Arma is a good example of a developer making a great open world and not even trying to fill it, heres your map fill it with **** yourself :pac:

Just cause an that New York prototype thing are poor open worlds in that they are soulless but still not bad games.

Open world has to be interesting in its own right, I can see why Skyrim grates because after a while it becomes samey. Witcher 3 avoids this by making each place and item somewhat interesting and different from the last one.