Why hasn't anyone ever done "open world" correctly?

Are you seriously proposing loading screens are what defines open world?

Majora's mask is an example of a semi-"open world" game, i guess

Deal with it, faggot.

Holy shit you're fucking retarded. There's options other than loading everything at once to have a continuous "no loading screen" experience.

Define "correctly"!

There will ever be a real contender to TES? Why Bethesda has a monopoly on that kind of games?

Dark Souls did it very well IMO thanks to the vertically oriented level design. It makes it very easy to make the world interconnected and reduce travel time, removing the need for fast travel through shortcuts.

This.

Maybe when John Carmack is done fucking around in space he'll solve the loading screen problem once and for all. Until then you'll just have to suffer these "fake" open world games that are really several different areas
God damn, what a crying faggot.

Making a good game in that genre, like with good animations, combat system, voice acting, lots of quests etc would cost too much. Bethesda doesn't do any of these and their costumers still buy, that's pretty much why only they do it

...

Gothic

Well if loading screens are what define an open world, then I guess Minecraft is an open world, done correctly. It's true that the Nether and Ether are separated by a loading screen, but the main world is """infinitely""" huge with different biomes, so it doesn't really matter if there are two areas that have a loading screen.

I think they removed the loading screen recently.
Or made it really fast.

A shame. If we ever get something good and capable of kicking TES in the ass maybe they would start put a bit more thought in their shit games

Well there you are, an open world done right, now go install some mods that add more biomes and more recipes, and your autism will be satisfied.

Fine. Just Cause 2. Probably 3 as well.
No loading screens. Go play them, have a great time instead of making shit threads about nothing, you autist.

I quite liked Just Cause 2 & 3 and Saints Row 2's open worlds, they both felt like they had quite a bit to do compared to most open world games.

all*

But those are fucking garbage, user.

Soul Reaver was on PS1 and I think it was one of the first games with little to no loading screens. Granted they "hid" some of it through some small areas you'd have to pass through while the game was loading the new one.

I unironically think Far Cry 3 is the best open-world non-RPG FPS.

Noice.

Although modern SSDs have reduced loading times so much that you'd hardly notice when you enter from hub to another area.

But honestly, I'd rather have more non-open world games. They've become so generic. Horizon Zero Dawn is like an archetype of a copycat "open world" game at this point. I'd say it takes every single gameplay elements from other games and doesn't do them as well either.

Nah, I meant 'all' as in all three of the games I mentioned.

...

It's still done because of technical limitations. I'm pretty sure CDPR didn't chop up the world into chunks because they felt it made good gameplay.
And the Toddster probably really wanted no loadingscreens in Fallout 4 until his henchmen told him it's impossible with their shitty engine.

Remove loading screens and instead you get glorified corridors as hidden loading screens and largely empty stretches that are only there to slow you down as you go from A to B.

Because modern game development is all about making games using technology that someone else already created. Graphics are always great because really smart engineers keep solving problems in that area, but you don't have really smart engineers working on open world capable engines and that code monkey / indie programmer isn't going to be solving that problem any time soon.

You don't need super computers, our home desktops are already very powerful, you just need good software. Bethesda games are made on a 20 year old engine, that's why they still need to have loading screens.

Linearity is a pro not a contra.

This. Open world is an excuse to avoid the careful crafting of an engaging interactive experience. Instead they sell you "go anywhere, do anything" and if you're lucky you'll get some procedurally generated content to fill the empty space. Most of the time not even that.

linearity is neither pro nor contra

in specific context it may be pro, and in specific context it may be contra, but it's not "inherently" good or bad

"open world" is always shit. Instead of having a loading zone between levels, you need to run or drive for twenty minutes to your next objective. It's just a huge waste of time.

Ultima 7, Morrowind, Fallout 2, and a bunch of other well crafted open world game proved the otherwise. Also, games like the Driver series wouldn't work well at all without open world because you wouldn't need to plan escape routes, hiding spots, and fastest passages. In short, well crafted games isn't contradictory to and in fact would benefit greatly from open world design if it's used as a decision making mechanic.

GTA and it's clones are wasted potential indeed, but I love GTA 4 though.

...

I think what Todd meant by no loading screens is the world isn't divided into small hubs. You can now fly anywhere with the jetpack like you did in morrowind. Sure you still get a loading screen when entering buildings, but the open world is all interconnected.

Skyrim from november of 2011 is the best open world even made today, I never liked the dead open world script of games like GTA

In Skyrim you can go direct for the last boss or places of the games since you are free to go to any part of the map, in Skyrim you can lockpick every house and will have differencies and personal things, personal NPC but they have histories, this looks like a real open world full of real life, who every character who you talk coud become a sidequest, a friend or something to know about the history within of the game, they talking about the books, or get money, or lockpick them, or get their maps, keys, something.

The world is really open world and full of life, you can go to some wizard school or be trained by warriors, you can be the evil, the good, be criminal, steal and make something in one city but nobody know that you're criminal or something in other city, have karma, when you go back to your city you but you have bad karma with them they will try to attack you, kill you, or you need to bribe guards giving money for them, or they don't accept money, you need to talk with them and have updated skills for this.

Skyrim for me still the best open world game

The problem today is sjw trying to make the games poozed but i hope they become a thing of the past and destroyed since the industry will die with them. I don't buy no game of sjw in the last year, since i see this also like something positive to not waste money with them, or when sjw try to put a disgusting bundle of something good mixed with some garbage of sjw for some political propaganda, manipulation, bias or disgusting shit who turn off people for games who they desperate tried to invade like marxists to manipulate for other things or their political party and narratives to make the game poozed and garbage by default or you abandom some game trilogy or thing when become poozed by them.

Skyrim still the best open world since november of 2011.

tell me lies

that was so hard to read

Being a nord stormcloak fighting against establshment for their lands and people was really good, have the fun, nice narrative, characters to choose, free choice and behavior, be the hero in this way, was very good in my opinion.

please go back to >>>reddit and never come back

Wrong. A linear structure makes a game's onjectives and world very, very hard to screw up. Open world games are shit because they're unstructured, there's no clarity and it's a mess.

How fucking hard would it be to incorporate just ONE of the best elements from each of the open world games together? Fuck's sake.

Just Cause 2 is as large as you'd ever need a world to be, and it was gorgeous and fun, but it's also completely dead and empty and all the settlements are just copy pasted and there are no interiors anywhere.

Give me a world the size and diversity of JC2 but with the ability to build a house ANYWHERE I LIKE. I want a cozy space where I can get out of the elements and world and get a great view and whatever.

If you're going to make an open world game, every building has to be enterable, too.

Forget JC2 sized map that isn't bland, no one even dares to create a TES like game but Bethesda.

No, and no one ever will.

The amount of dev time and resources to create an open world game of any meaningful size, filled with meaningfully unique content in every area, living up to modern graphical standards would put any company on this planet, game developer or otherwise, out of business.

It's never going to be anything more than a mediocre imitation of table top games.

Visually, Witcher 3 was gorgeous to roam around in. Of course, I may have been a little high from my pain medication at the time

This must be a copypasta of a youtube comment, there are many factual inaccuracies in those three paragraphs.

Friend, the Bethesda game you're looking for is Morrowind. It's got much of the same deal, but also hand placed items so the base task of exploration is routinely rewarded with some sort of rare artifact, gem, or item.

Titan Quest spoiled me.

open world sucks and is not practical with current technology. You're always trading important things off which break immersion

I think the best we can do is with linked closed world instances. The trick is to maintain the illusion of an open world, so you will need boundaries like structures, naturally-scaled geography, and forests which must be implemented sensibly enough that they don't break immersion.

Also distance and time. The few minutes you spend in an instanced area are not enough for there to be changes in daylight or weather. The link between instanced areas represents distance which should accumulate the corresponding in-game time.

...

It'll happen eventually, it just won't be from Bethesda. OpenMW is making good progress and I've had success merging interior/exterior cells in Seyda Neen and some caves, though it'll be a huge pain in the ass for Telvanni cities because the interiors/exteriors need to be heavily modified to fit without clipping.

Also there needs to be optimization done before it works with Balmora (Vulkan would help with all the draw calls).

Only until it gets dehardcoded and we can finally fix the broken combat/no NPC schedules

...

Theres so many mods that add these already

You can have good RPG combat that isn't mindless, and RNG is cancer under all circumstances no exceptions. Not being skilled with a weapon should make your character attack more slowly/less powerfully, being good at dodging should make you dodge faster/farther, not being good at casting spells should make them weaker or cost more. There is no reason to leave anything to random numbers.

Buggy as hell and very inefficient but there's no way to improve it without changes to the scripting system.

Good to hear it.

Jeez, user, I thought you were cool.

That's the very nature of traditional role playing games. Morrowind is one of those games. Taking that out of Morrowind is taking a substantial part of what makes it the game it is.

I was exaggerating somewhat for dramatic effect but I don't think Morrowind combat needs any RNG, it adds nothing that you can't get from non-random mechanics.

The main time when RNG works in gameplay is when it forces you to prepare for multiple outcomes, like in XCOM if you have a % chance of an important shot not working you need to prepare both a backup plan and a plan for if you succeed. In Morrowind combat, you never have to do this therefore the RNG has no purpose.

Why?

What do random numbers add to the gameplay that couldn't be added by messing with damage numbers/attack speed/etc? Read above for why the game doesn't benefit from the main purpose of RNG.

Because most games really don't need an "open world". The ones that do try it end up being better off if they took away the open world part, because it ends up being fucking empty with nothing to do.
Roaming around an almost barren map with content you've seen and done a dozen times isn't fun no matter how much they shill it.

A lot of people also confuse "open world" with "sandbox". They're not the same thing. Loading screens don't really define an open world either in my opinion. it just makes it more 'seemless'.

The games that would really benefit from open worlds would be MMO's. Being able to go anywhere even if a certain region you're about to enter is entirely hostile to you, without invisible walls or other barriers put up by the devs to stop you from entering. Little to no instanced content so you actually have to interact with different groups of players even if you already gathered your own little party of dudes you wouldn't even bother talking to in regular MMO's.

Basically it means that it doesn't put you on rails. Most games don't need it because once they do it loses most, if not all focus and becomes this awkward mess of mediocre content that you can do in any order, but is more meaningless because of it.

Oh and since XCOM isn't a "role-playing game" by most people's arbitrary definition then I'll use the el classico as an example.

The only reason DnD has RNG is to make the combat more interesting since you have to prepare for potential failure. If you are in a situation where a bad dude is gonna attack your friend but you can attack the bad dude first then you need to have several plans:
Since there is no way to know for sure which of those three outcomes you'll have, you need to plan for all three of them just in case.

However, in a video game you don't need RNG here. It can just be difficult for you to kill the bad dude (like maybe you need a headshot and he moves quickly) which means that you need to prepare for all three of those outcomes anyways in case you fuck up. The only difference between this and RNG is that fucking up is your fault. You might say that this isn't in the spirit of role-playing and making a build of a character who rarely fucks up, but you can do that too by making it so if you have a shit build then you shoot fireballs more slowly and need to hit him multiple times to take him down. This decreases the likelihood that you kill the bad dude but it's still based on player input rather than random numbers.

I like to play games in third person in RPG/Action/Adventure games, to see the armour and everything, I tried to play morrowing for 3 minutes after played Skyrim and i find their moviment faken, unnatural, bad physics, the same thing happened for Oblivion that for my personal tastes the characters of Oblivion looks uglier than the characters of Skyrim and uglier than the characters of morrowind with the Oblivion round fat faces and unnatural movimment and bad physics.

But Morrowind with mods for graphics looks better, and play Morrowind in first person is better, but i prefer to play RPG Open World games in third person with few exceptions that have only first person camera, and i like.

Some day i will try morrowind again maybe and see if Morrowind is really good and not a meme like people saying to use Gentoo when Gentoo is the hardest Linux to install and configure.

Skyrim have the perfect balance for my taste, i can play in third person, the characters walk natural, the physics is better tha Oblivion, the characters looks better, with mods the graphics were improved even around 2012, but today we have these updated versions of Skyrim with graphics updated even for console.

Morrowind looks very good with mods too, and have many people who for years created mods and worked in morrowind and loves this game, and i respect these people who make something for fun with their hearts.

But i don't want to make people who like and put their heart in develope or create mods for Oblivion too, I respect all the fans on internet who put their hearts to improve the game who they love, like the people who for years loved and tried to improve morrowind with mods, same happened too for Oblivion.

Damn, I almost fell for it.

Agree with you. Games like Batman Arkham series, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, none of them needed open world and it only took away from the experience since the time put into these huge ass empty worlds filled with repetitive missions could've be put on other, more important stuff.

I'm convinced most of open world shit these days are pure marketing. "METAL GEAR GOES OPEN WORLD!" or "THIS GAME HAVE A MAP TWICE THE SIZE OF THAT OTHER GAME MAP" it's pure marketing gibberish, it adds jack shit to the game quality.

No it didn't.

But Morrowind does have loading screens in the overworld, most noticeable if you fly around with 1000+ speed. Each square is a separate loading area, and you stutter each time you cross into a new square. On a save that's really far into the game, you stutter for around 5 seconds each time. Even Skyrim did that better.

The point was that it was all seamless, not that it never has to load.

It is cancer. RNG is a stopgap measure that you use as a placeholder for mechanics that aren't yet implemented or feasible. As computers and programming ideas improve, the need for RNG is reduced, and its presence should decrease accordingly.

...

Even then,

Because it's how Morrowind is. Why would you want to make Morrowind more like Skyrim, or Oblivion? The game works on stats and dice rolls, I don't understand why people find this arbitrary or "bad." It's a role playing game, those things are integral to role playing games.

You're right, because it's not. Call me a purist, but I don't see anything wrong with the rules of combat in Morrowind. You pick a weapon skill, you get good at it (either by practice or paying for training), and you'll start having better dice rolls in favor of striking your opponent. It's that easy, it's that simple.

Shit, can you imagine a medieval war game where the AI actually handles shit on its own? You can take a side in the war (you can even make a third side in the war) or you can sit back and profit from it or ignore it altogether and let the AI battle it out on their own. Eventually you wander into a town and they're just receiving updates on the ownership of cities and towns; you have to use town maps (that may be out of date because information takes time to travel) to keep track of that (your personal map is automatically updated when you get new information), otherwise you might be trying to recruit people masquerading as rebels!

Fuck's sake. I want that now.

Load = seam, you fucking lunatic.

Because most devs think open world games need to be fucking huge in order to fit into the genre. This leads them to just making large worlds where you only have a handful of thing to do/explore.

Good open world needs either to be filled with detailed locations and/or autisticly interactive environments. There should be no spaces filled with jack shit, with the exception of creating cool looking landscapes/room for the player to build shit. Most shit pushed out today would benefit greatly by shrinking the open world or just using open ended level design instead.

Do you know why table top RPGs have RNG? Its to make them fucking possible. Table Tops are run in the mind of the people that play them, but the problem is that unless people have some mental condition they always see themselves in their own mind as the best person in the world. So to prevent RPGs from being childish stories where everyone tries to be the best there is, they have rules backed by RNG to bring everyone on the same common denominator and make a world possible, that only exists in everyones head. On the other hand Video Game RPGs and video games in general don't need RNG, because the common denominator was already decided by the developer.

The dice roll mechanics themselves aren't bad. The issue is that it plops you in FPS view and controls. If it looks like an FPS and smells like an FPS, it should probably play like an FPS. Having precise control over your character, firing an arrow, watching it hit an enemy and then have it say "miss" in the bottom left is pretty dumb and unintuitive.

That being said, I would prefer dumb and unituitive over Skyrim/Oblivion backpeddaling arrow strategy. I'd like them to revisit the Morrowind combat, but make it a bit clearer what's going on. I remember my first time trying to play it, I unloaded dozens of arrows into a fucking roach or something but it killed me, and I had no idea why it "had so much health"

Dungeon siege is just a forward crawl along a hallway.

Seam is a line you cross to have it load. Seamless is actually a moving seam but if your brick can't keep up with your movement you hit the seam. You need some kind of a beast computer to have truly seamless and at that point your game runs so shit because of all the shit loaded that you can't see

Indeed, OP is a faggot.
Fallout 4 did open world near perfectly.
:'^) :^) :'^)

Loading != seam

Proof: in OpenMW, nearby interior cells and travel routes are loaded into memory if it is available. When you walk up to a door of a house and click on it you instantly go inside the house. This is not seamless because you are teleporting from the exterior to the interior by clicking on the door, but there is no loadscreen because it's already loaded.

Morrowind's exterior isn't always loaded, it loads in the background and if you travel at absurd speeds you can go faster than it can load. However, it is still entirely seamless even though it must load because the seams are invisible. You don't get teleported between cells in the overworld when you travel between them (like isometric RPGs where the camera follows you), you can just walk to them.

I think you need to get your autism checked out user, this may be a board for autistics but your case might be a little too severe, even for here.

A better question for a thread would be: Why hasn't someone done fantasy correctly? Why is it that everyone from AAA big studio developers with designers and idea guys that get payed top dollar, to single indie developers limit the definition of fantasy to a painfully small, dry pool of ideas and inspiration that creators before them have already done an great job of exploring and presenting. This isn't limited to videogames; majority of comics, cartoons, anime, movies and books keep reusing assets ranging from the setting and atmosphere, down to identical race characteristics being copy-pasted from previous works. Why is (most) fantasy limited to tolkienshit, lovecraft, or based on some niche jap folklore? I could my problem, I know some autist in the thread will imminently post some obscure vidya that haven't heard of. And that's the problem, why is it obscure? Why do people keep using the same 3 good guy races of tolkien's inspired men, dwarfs and elfs, and orcs, demons and undead as token bad guys? Why are all the maps and worlds coastal? Instead of having a generic, "exotic" desert with a middle-eastern inspired towelhead race, have an Irish coast with great-sword wielding pigmen with bagpipes. Have a fantasy set in an inland map with high cliffs and steppes, battling as scandinavian humans battling against mongol themed orcs. Any kind of deviations is acceptable at this point. We don't have to seek out myths and legends to use in modern fantasy (although they always have cooler lore), there are plenty of books from old times detailing new stuff that is ripe for a "reimagination". Like I remember a documentary about one of the explorers of the new world detailing how he saw a race of light-blue furry, goat men in grassy islands. That sounds like fun world to explore. These ideas aren't even original, but they head and shoulders above anything recent in fantasy being used. I want originality and new settings to explore and new races to kill.

If you think that loading screens when entering dungeons/buildings is even a relevant problem within the open world sub genre then you're a fucking retard.

I fucking hate this, I cannot comprehend why so many people start their setting by copying shit that already exists for no reason. Tolkein did take pretty much everything in his setting from established fairy tales but he chose them deliberately and deviated pretty far from the source. He chose to put elves in the setting not because they were expected in a fantasy setting, but because he felt that his conception of what an elf would would be of benefit to the story/world. Yet all the retarded writers that came after him don't even question the idea that perhaps maybe "fantasy" doesn't have to be "copy Tolkein without really knowing why" and is instead anything fantastical.

People's perception of what fantasy is has become so warped that whenever someone comes along and actually does get creative with it, they describe it as sci-fi. Now Morrowind has plenty of derivative fantasy shit in it (which it probably wouldn't if it wasn't a sequel to an established series), but it also had quite a bit of actual creativity in its setting. And when people describe it they often say "it's so alien it's like a sci-fi setting except fantasy." If you had never seen a depiction of a dragon or goblin before you'd think regular fantasy was just as alien.

Here's all the good videogame settings I can think of that aren't just copypaste fantasy or copypaste sci-fi:

Even then, all of those are at least somewhat derivative. I don't need settings to be truly original, I just want the people making them to actually consider all of the elements they're putting in rather than just blindly copypasting because of genre norms.

This isn't creative, you're just mish-mashing existing crap together and thinking if it's random/new/wacky it must be good. You fucking pleb.

It's shit I made up on the top of my head. Point was it doesn't take much to come up with semi-original ideas, even if they're bad.

Maybe if you'd bother to actually look for videogames you'd see a hint of creativity now and again.

I think the real point here is that "original" is not inherently good. And it's better to have a well-crafted but unoriginal idea, than an original but dogshit idea.

meant for

I'm retarded

Maybe if you read my post you wouldn't look like a retard. My point wasn't that there isn't any creativity, but a lack of it.

That's why we'll keep repeating the same shit over and over again.

Better the same shit that's decent, than crappy "original" material.

Yes, exactly. Don't deviate from the norm. Wouldn't want to experiment and create something good and original at the same time.

Deriving from existing works without understanding why the existing works were made the way they were is crappy too. If you put elves in your setting for no reason other than "because it's a fantasy setting" then your setting is garbage and the elves have no place there.

If you are really that uncreative then either directly adapt an existing setting that is actually good or use contemporary/historical settings. Of course if you're that uncreative then the rest of your writing will be shit too so there's no point in you even attempting to make something.

Probably because your definition of "open world" is laughably wrong.

Oh, so it's a seam, then. Thanks for admitting it.

You're wrong, Dwarf Fortress.

You're free to foot the bill for experimentation. Devs have families to feed and can't afford making crap.

Time to die.

In much the same way the infinite procedural generation allows lazy indie devs to forgo making an interesting world, being "open world" allows devs to get away with sparsely populated landscapes in between singular points of interest, under the guise of realism or simulation.

Probably a host of practical reasons.

Say in books, you want to introduce some wild new race of creatures. Purely out of your own fantasy, different than anything else that has even been written about. Great, now you will have to find a way to introduce everything it does in a good manner. What do these creatures look like, how do they move, how does their society work? How do you answer all of these questions and the many more that shall be there without it being boring. Few people can do that well. So only few people are able to introduce vastly different races.
For movies or games, it may be easier to answer these questions because things like how they move can be seen rather easily. But most of the tools you use will be designed for moving humanlike creatures. And every animator you find will have a rather easy time with human creatures but wouldn't have the biological understanding needed to make a totally made up creature move in an acceptable fashion.

Of course your fantasy creatures do not even need to work biologically or mechanically. But I would assume that then you hit the worst barrier. Customers and their tastes. People have a hard time accepting something that doesn't look right. It can look strange, but it has to move correctly. It can have a weird hunting behavior, but we should be able to understand it. Even though that isn't even the case in nature. Many creatures, especially in the sea, are much weirder than most fantasy creatures. We understand elves and dwarves. So we don't need the whole introduction to yet another race. We have an easy time accepting them as they are. They are humanoid so they are easy to make.

Yeah, I think the biggest reason why fantasy is so vanilla in our entertainment is just because the other ways don't work well enough for now.

That's actually a really good explanation. It's just not worth putting in the effort to make something non-human fit in with the environment. And if you change the environment to suit the race, you need to change more and more things until you get something completely alien. Which like you said wouldn't be ease to get into. At last I truly see?

I don't think it's technical limitations. I'm pretty sure it's easy to have a big open world, world texture streaming isn't too hard. What is holding it back is the content. You can only have so many "go fetch X quest" before it gets boring and putting too much time in a side quest takes away from the main story.

Nice job addressing the argument, and it's an engine by the way. I'm using it as an example because I don't know of another game that shows both the loading of seamless cells and a lack of loading between non-seamless areas.

Nah, seamless loading of areas is certainly a technical limitation. It could be solved with some clever optimizations, but it is most certainly done for that reason.

So to speak, caves, cities, houses… are much more detailed than the overworld. You may find a few animals here and there while traveling, but almost all objects are static, but whenever you get into a house, you have to account for a bunch of small dynamic objects, NPC, dynamic lights…

Does it matter if its different cells between overworld and houses if you don't notice the switch?
With increasingly powerful computers the loading becomes more and more seamless until you wont notice it anymore.

Sounds expensive and hard as fuck. Like having smart NPCs everywhere actually doing real things you can interact with for immersion.

Miyazaki is such a fucking autistic asshole

Not always. Far Cry series comes to mind. GTA games don't have them either, iirc. They just stream content from disk based on proximity. It's common tech, I remember the DXHR Director's Cut commentary had some devs talking about how they hadn't entirely figured out streaming and AI for the first level, so there were technical issues with how far it could chase the player.

The question, really, is why open-world is shit. Nobody seems to have good quest structure. Playgrounds inevitably get dull, no matter how dramatic you make them. Scale always feels weird. There's never enough detail. Why? How come nobody is fixing it?

That would enter the realm of smart optimizations. If I recall correctly, Source attempts to divide the maps in areas and aggressively unload all the zones that can't be visible from your position, but it kind of uses manual developer input for that.

Do we have the technology to load "dense" areas of the world? Maybe not, unless you are doing some hardcore shit with k-d trees. Do we have the means to make it seem like everything is seamless? Most certainly, but it requires devs to get a bit creative.

Are you going to explain what correctly is or are you just going to complain about open worlds being done wrong without specification like everyone else?

They tried to do it on STALKER, and the game stuttered like hell.

This thread started off on a retarded point and it hasn't gotten any better
An open world game being good has nothing to do with the map being split up into chunks or not
The Witcher 3 wouldn't have been any better if the maps were connected by linear hallways that you had to walk through for hours to get between them without a loading screen

...

Because it just sounds a lot better on paper than it can ever be realistically implemented.

Ironically Xenoblade X and to a lesser extent the new Zeldo game do this. After starting the game the only loading screens in Xenoblade X are when you fast travel or go in one of the like three indoor areas. In BotW there's a loading screen for every one of those retarded little shrines, but not houses. However, both games have texture pop-in, and BotW just plain chugs a lot basically all the time. I'm impressed they do as well as they do since the Wii U is a piece of shit. Piracy is a godsend.

Adventure mode only achieved the removal of development focus from the proper game mode.

So you're saying that Xenoblade still has loading screen. GTA IV had no loading screen at all.

Open world, AS YOU DEFINE IT, is procedural generated infinitely sized worlds. But the problem with that is procedural generated worlds are generic, nondescript and lack any kind of unique topography or features of note. You can certainly pepper them on top of things using coordinates like say Daggerfall, but the thing is, procedural generated worlds are just as bad as bland handcrafted worlds. There's a lot of vast space, and very little actual content.

If you want an open world game, play fucking Minecraft maybe, but you're not going to find a game with an actual open world otherwise.

Here's my personal list of things that should be in a great open-world game:

Very few (if any) open-world games have actually managed to do this for me, and so far the closest to a perfect open-world game seems to be Zelda: BotW

He's back from retirement, baby! Can't spirit away the Miyazaki!!

Walking 200 miles to steal cheese from someone's house is fucking boring.

Dungeon Siege doesn't load it all in at once, it's actually seamlessly loading everything as it comes by design but it's not an example for everything being loaded at the same time.

Zelda doesn't have any load times and you can enter every building.

Lineage 2 only has loading screen at the start and IF you teleport really huge distances. Normal movement there was NO loading screens and this was in 2003.

The loading took place while on elevators. The elevator ride through the dark emptiness takes as long as it needs to load the next area.

I know yakuza 6 has no loading screens or very few instances where entering buildings creates a loading screen now. But unless you know nip you gotta wait till 2018.

/thread

I wanna see an Rpg that loads interiors by knocking at the door, so you wait for the guy to actually come and open it for you, and it has the time to render the insides.
Alternatively, at night, the loading takes place when you lockpick the door since nobody is awake to open.

We are closer and closer to the "real open world was never tried" kind of bullshit…

Breath of the Wild did it right

0/10, try harder.

DAoC and UO didn't have loading screens.

The only DAoC loading screen was when you teleported to a different realms zone for RvR, but if you were the realm where the RvR was happening you could just walk out of the gate where the RvR was.

Until you can simulate the smell of your game world open world games will never expand.

But isn't that a good way to do it?
To mask the loading time as part of the gameworld.
iirc Mass Effect did the same with elevators and Metrois Prime with doors to adjacent zones.
As long as you somehow avoid the loading screen, like in Morrowind, where in the worst case every couple minutes you'd get one by crossing the zones, is the next best thing at the moment.

Didn't the guy who he shat on commit sudoku afterwards?

what?

Open world was NEVER good.
WoW Vanilla did it best. That's it.

...

jak and daxter did open-world right
in that game there are no loading screens except for maybe loading a saved game

fuckin sucks man

L.A. Noire suffered from that, luckily you could just hop in the passenger seat most of time. The city was very boring to drive around unlike the GTA games. I just can't put my finger on why though.

I disagree…. compressed worlds feel stupid and fake - take the Elder Scrolls series: From the towns walls you easily see the ancient lost ruins that no man visited before.
FIVE FUCKING FEET FROM THE TOWN GATES.

To make open world games work you have to make travel itself the interesting part. That doesn't mean just shoving in a bunch of shit to look at. You need to achieve balance. Finding a ruin or a cabin by itself can be exciting, but if you're seeing one every five minutes it becomes boring.
Shrinking the world and stuffing it with crap just means you get to avoid actually travelling because you're constantly distracted, but that's the wrong approach entirely.

Because it's exceendigly complicated, it's a very new genre if you consider actual 3D worlds and the people talking the most about it are the ones that don't like it to begin with. This goes for both devs and players.

Most devs that work with open world don't actually want a large world to explore, they still have this really cool story they want to tell you, they are just too fucking stupid to properly structure it in a logical way, so instead they make a large world and you can do most of it in any order you want and that's that.
Other's can't even do that much and their "story" ends up being something incredibly short and barely worth the money you'll pay for the game.
You can finish the Civil War in Skyrim in 2 hours. And the entire Alduin quest chain in roughly the same time.

So they make a large open world where they spread missions in a linear way (gotta make them in a certain order) and even have them happen inside set levels apart from the world. However, they'll fill the world with side activities for you to do that never really intersect very much with their story, least it change anything from their very cool narrative.

But the fucking players don't help here.
Some retards are happy with what they get and consider it the best, as if the games couldn't be massively improved even if they are good now. This just leads to devs doing the same thing over and over again because apparently that's all they want. There are no real suggestions or demands from the fans.

And then there are the fucking retards that don't like open world games but still force themselves to play it and complain afterwards that they didn't liked it.
They go through the whole game expecting every moment to be dedicated to the main story because all they want is to clear it as fast as possible and "beat the game", exploration for them is finding ammo beneath stairs or a breakable wall with a medikit behind it.
And because these faggots can't fucking shut up about a genre they clearly aren't a fan of, what you get is open world games that stay the fuck away from having sandbox elements or simulations and provide you with a very linear experience in a very large world.

So that's it. Bunch of people talking way too much about things they don't even like, making a genre they have no interest in actually worse for everyone else.

Distance often helps to characterize the world, giving it a sense of scale. Giant ruins are only impressive if they are actually giant, big bridges are only interesting if they are indeed big and have a very deep chasm beneath them, etc.
Elder Scrolls games have for the most part pathetically small cities and villages with a very small amount of people and houses to the point that bandit camps are densily populated in comparison.

Usually this is why I install mods for hunger and sleep, so time has meaning in that it costs me resources and is a factor I need to consider.
And if the game offers different methods of travel, each with their own advantages and disadvantages, that's pretty cool too.

In terms of landmarks, it's great when you have a bunch of easily acessible stuff that you can reach fast but doesn't have anything that interesting while there's also some really cool landmarks and places that take a good hike to reach.

This timeline is absolute fucking shite.

If anyone did that, you'd be surrounded by morons complaining that there's no point in raising skeletons since they are trash mobs, that your magic is OP and other liches are randomly generated content that is inferior to custom-tailored experiences,

You'd honestly have people complaing that the game wasn't misson-structured, with the number of skeletons carrying over mission to mission and that Overlord was better than that idea.

why. even. live.

some of the 2D zelda games do open world right.

You're referring to ALBW right? Because at least for your picture, there's a very set dungeon order.

I think user is talking about the 2D LoZ games in general? TMC had a fixed dungeon order, but that doesn't take away any of the games value. In a thread last week 7 fucking people were playing TMC, and that's because it is an awesome game nonetheless.

God damn Vaati was an awesome boss.

-10/10, try even harder.

Because it was painstakingly REAL, but had absolutely nothing unique, random, or fulfilling about it. It was dead, empty, and locked down except for plot-specific locations.

Not necessarily. The travel in a world can really give you a better sense of the state of things and make you feel more a part of it, rather than just some abstract protagonist who runs about completing various tasks. Granted, it really depends on how well done the world is and the travel systems, if any.

This idea that open world is inherently bad is a shit meme. Shitty open worlds are shitty, as are shitty level based games. Done well, they can be an incredible addition to the game.

...

It wasn't the pain meds but I bet they helped. The world in Witcher 3 is absolutely beautiful, my only real complaint is that the storms don't feel violent enough.

I'm not saying it does, it's just that this thread is debating open worlds.

Give it up.

What

...

BoTW is the dark souls of zelda
Thank you, gaming "journalism"

The day that this ends can't come soon enough.

for

I wasn't saying it did, I was saying it's a good example of a game without loading times.

That was a Scrib you dumb nigger. What the fuck did you think your weapon stats were for? Jerking off?

It is a bit difficult to buy but if it was actually realistically spaced then they would have to either cut the number of places in the world by a lot or fill the space with empty space just to pad things out. Personally I'd rather have a game world be smaller and crammed full of stuff to do, even if it really doesn't make sense in the real world, than to have a game area that is full of empty space.

I feel cheated.