I pretty much think the "Envy" part applies to almost every open world game, although you could say that part pretty much encapsulates all other categories in a way because there is no real reason most of these games should be open world games for any amount of reasons: Lack of interior level design for dungeons, filling it with good side content, etc Cyberpunk 2077 is the only open world game where i didnt have a problem with the game being open world. Its radiant quests are more like mini Deus ex levels and some of them ( especially the side quests ) are more memorable than most games's main story, fun traveling methods ( which means you dont feel the need to fast travel ), variety of actual ways to engage in combat, many ways to stealth, etc. Even a game like Elden Ring burnt me the hell out before i even finished the game because it was too huge with very few good dungeons and way too little boss enemy variety
I think my biggest issue with open world games is the impractical obsession with detail without interactivity. Or. If its pokemon, scale without scope. I'm much more of a fan of a Yakuza size game, vs a supermassive world like scarlet and violet with nothing in it.
Well I think the thing with pokemon now is that there's pretty much no exciting build up. Evil teams used to be evil, where you actually wanted to tear them down and being champion just kinda felt like a larger title in the older games.
*Cyberpunk 2077 would've been the greatest game ever made if it focused on smaller linear sections and path altering choices 👌 I thought for years that's the game it would be but when I saw they made it completely open world, I knew from that moment THEY FUCKED IT UP* 🗣
Broadly speaking , video games are simply another medium for telling stories, not too disimilar to books, movies, and TV shows. Sure, some games have little to no story, but ideally, every game should have a story at its core. Open-world design is an inherently inferior approach to telling a story because the developer has little control over the pacing of the story. A player can explore/ do side content for many hours before returning to the main story, which can be detrimental to immersion. The Witcher 3, Cyberpunk 2077, RD2, and BG3 can get away with it because of how these games treat secondary content. They care about it and treat those smaller stories with the same care and attention as the main story. So even though players are exploring and doing side content, it seldom feels boring, because each side quest feels like its own contained story, and the player's attention doesn't wander off as a result. Sadly, most open-world developers choose to lean into scale (making huge maps), and then populate these giant maps with mind-numing tasks because writing compelling stories requires time and resources. This is how we end up with Andromeda or Inquisition, or literally any Ubisoft game.
You know whats the worst part? Many of these open world games are marketed as RPGs. RPGs to me usually would mean cRPGs ( usually the only types where you actually are given a lot of agency over your choices ), but looking it from another perspective: Its a type of game that shouldnt sacrifice any part of game, because an RPG's most important part should be immersion, so anything that takes out from the experience is a massive L. The fact that many of Cyberpunks Radiant missions ( gigs and im not just talking about PL ones which got extra attention obv ) are better written than most games's main story is just the real key point how good side content can be and those missions are not even real sidequests therefore meaning they have a lot less passion in them. Then again i personally gave up on any western/eastern AAA game dev outside of CDPR for open world ( and otherwise tbh and i dont count Larian as AAA).
@@AngRyGohan You can have widely different interpertations of RPGs. cRPGs are but a sub-genre of RPGs and don't inherently suggest more agency for the player, though you are right that they typically do. You hit the nail right on the head with your Cyberpunk example. It's all about the story at the end of the day, be it your main story or side stories. It's about the quality of writing but also the presentation. To give you an example, I'm replaying Mass Effect 3 (for the hundredth time now), and the side missions are not only interesting because the writing is good, but also because of how well they are presented. You get cutscenes and dialogue leading into the missions. It feels like high-quality content before you even started the mission. Compare it with Andromeda, where your radiant quests are a generic over-the-shoulder camera where you can not even make out the face of the quest giver. It is a night and day difference.
The in game shop in AC Odyssey and Valhalla isn't really a big deal. After 5-10 hours of gameplay you just forget about it's existence entirely. Although it sounds game ruining on paper, it's not something that the average player will ever consider using.
I'm surprised Halo Infinite wasnt mentioned with "envy" having just literally copied Far Cry's homework. Though, I think more people played the Spartan Assault mobile games than Infinites campaign.
Baldur's gate 3 is an excellent but not open world game Open worlds have vast open areas. BG3 has pathways and smaller hubs instead of vast swaps of open world area to explore in my opinion, way better than an open world game!
#1 sin, ubisoft.
Sin #2
Bethesda
I pretty much think the "Envy" part applies to almost every open world game, although you could say that part pretty much encapsulates all other categories in a way because there is no real reason most of these games should be open world games for any amount of reasons: Lack of interior level design for dungeons, filling it with good side content, etc
Cyberpunk 2077 is the only open world game where i didnt have a problem with the game being open world. Its radiant quests are more like mini Deus ex levels and some of them ( especially the side quests ) are more memorable than most games's main story, fun traveling methods ( which means you dont feel the need to fast travel ), variety of actual ways to engage in combat, many ways to stealth, etc. Even a game like Elden Ring burnt me the hell out before i even finished the game because it was too huge with very few good dungeons and way too little boss enemy variety
I think my biggest issue with open world games is the impractical obsession with detail without interactivity. Or. If its pokemon, scale without scope. I'm much more of a fan of a Yakuza size game, vs a supermassive world like scarlet and violet with nothing in it.
What the fuck, this video's so good. How is your channel so small? I'm glad I got recommended this
thanks youtube for reccomending this video and channel
unironically extremely high quality and details, simple and nice, not too long not too short.
Thanks!
the recepy for a good open world game is doing the opposite of everything ubisoft and slopthesda are doing
Some recommendations for good open games, cyberpunk, yakuza, mario Odyssey, zelda (botw, totk)
Baldurs gate, sable, and new vegas.
Well I think the thing with pokemon now is that there's pretty much no exciting build up. Evil teams used to be evil, where you actually wanted to tear them down and being champion just kinda felt like a larger title in the older games.
*Cyberpunk 2077 would've been the greatest game ever made if it focused on smaller linear sections and path altering choices 👌 I thought for years that's the game it would be but when I saw they made it completely open world, I knew from that moment THEY FUCKED IT UP* 🗣
Broadly speaking , video games are simply another medium for telling stories, not too disimilar to books, movies, and TV shows. Sure, some games have little to no story, but ideally, every game should have a story at its core.
Open-world design is an inherently inferior approach to telling a story because the developer has little control over the pacing of the story. A player can explore/ do side content for many hours before returning to the main story, which can be detrimental to immersion.
The Witcher 3, Cyberpunk 2077, RD2, and BG3 can get away with it because of how these games treat secondary content. They care about it and treat those smaller stories with the same care and attention as the main story. So even though players are exploring and doing side content, it seldom feels boring, because each side quest feels like its own contained story, and the player's attention doesn't wander off as a result.
Sadly, most open-world developers choose to lean into scale (making huge maps), and then populate these giant maps with mind-numing tasks because writing compelling stories requires time and resources. This is how we end up with Andromeda or Inquisition, or literally any Ubisoft game.
You know whats the worst part? Many of these open world games are marketed as RPGs. RPGs to me usually would mean cRPGs ( usually the only types where you actually are given a lot of agency over your choices ), but looking it from another perspective: Its a type of game that shouldnt sacrifice any part of game, because an RPG's most important part should be immersion, so anything that takes out from the experience is a massive L.
The fact that many of Cyberpunks Radiant missions ( gigs and im not just talking about PL ones which got extra attention obv ) are better written than most games's main story is just the real key point how good side content can be and those missions are not even real sidequests therefore meaning they have a lot less passion in them. Then again i personally gave up on any western/eastern AAA game dev outside of CDPR for open world ( and otherwise tbh and i dont count Larian as AAA).
@@AngRyGohan You can have widely different interpertations of RPGs. cRPGs are but a sub-genre of RPGs and don't inherently suggest more agency for the player, though you are right that they typically do.
You hit the nail right on the head with your Cyberpunk example. It's all about the story at the end of the day, be it your main story or side stories. It's about the quality of writing but also the presentation.
To give you an example, I'm replaying Mass Effect 3 (for the hundredth time now), and the side missions are not only interesting because the writing is good, but also because of how well they are presented.
You get cutscenes and dialogue leading into the missions. It feels like high-quality content before you even started the mission. Compare it with Andromeda, where your radiant quests are a generic over-the-shoulder camera where you can not even make out the face of the quest giver. It is a night and day difference.
The in game shop in AC Odyssey and Valhalla isn't really a big deal. After 5-10 hours of gameplay you just forget about it's existence entirely. Although it sounds game ruining on paper, it's not something that the average player will ever consider using.
Yep, it's one of the few examples of "successful" MTXs in a singleplayer game.
so basically ubisoft?
I'm surprised Halo Infinite wasnt mentioned with "envy" having just literally copied Far Cry's homework. Though, I think more people played the Spartan Assault mobile games than Infinites campaign.
I honestly forgot halo infinite was open world LOL
@@Atmux One of the most egregious examples I can think of for something that isnt meant to be open world just forcing it because current trends.
Baldur's gate 3 is an excellent but not open world game
Open worlds have vast open areas. BG3 has pathways and smaller hubs instead of vast swaps of open world area to explore in my opinion, way better than an open world game!
i actully like how ac vahalla was made
You don't need to buy anything from the microtransactions in ac Odyssey. If you find it hard play easy mode don't whine about it