What's your preferred "open world"?

[DreakonXIII]

I ask because I've been trying to figure out why modern day open world games bother me, and I think it's because (taking magic and sci-fi stuff out of the equation) the settings in games like Fallout and The Witcher and the Elder Scrolls games are (while graphically appealing) so dull.  Fallout is just looking for every "large enclosed structure" it can possibly stuff a settlement into.  The Witcher is basically the same small village 100x, with some larger settlements that basically look like the same small village piled on top of themselves a few times.  I'll call these pseudo-realism, since it's an admittedly more realistic take (despite potentially unrealistic subject matter).

 

Granted... older games (with worlds I've preferred) weren't truly "open world" until, typically, later in the games... but still.  Taking Final Fantasy VII/VIII as an example.  The worlds were fascinating.  So many locales, theme parks next to steampunk metropolises, oriental-themed villages next to western european towns, ancient temples next to flying schools.  I guess you could put Mass Effect in a list of "worlds" that tried a little harder to keep things interesting, where you were almost more excited to see what the next place was going to look like than you were about doing whatever you needed to do there.  I'll call these kinds of games, pure fantasy.

 

Which do you prefer?  In terms of the world/geography.  Not in terms of preferred games/gameplay styles.

Edited March 7, 2016 by DreakonXIII

[Feral]

I definitely prefer the more realistic ones, just makes easier to get into.

[Redgrave]

I say fantasy since there can be places that leave a lot to the imagination.

[katniss1444]

I prefer worlds based in fantasy. With worlds aiming for realism, it's easier to see through the cracks and notice flaws, which makes it easier for me to lose immersion. Fantasy worlds are able to make their own rules, to an extent, which I think often leaves them in a better position to create really memorable and special places to explore. 

[Pumpkin Head Cthulhu]

are we talking open world or sandbox they are technically different styles? either way ill take fantasy anyday. if i want realism i will go outside.

[DreakonXIII]

are we talking open world or sandbox they are technically different styles?

 

Doesn't really matter.  The question isn't about the way the world is fed to you or what you do in it... it's about the setting and geography of the world as a whole and which style (fantasy-crazy places that could probably never exist; or reality-simpler worlds derived from concepts of our existing world in the past, present or future that could perhaps feasibly exist sans magic and sci-fi) is more appealing to you in games.

Edited March 7, 2016 by DreakonXIII

[Super-Fly Spider-Guy]

Vice City is my preferred open world.

[Kubanga]

Can't I choose both?

[PREDRAG-K]

So I was thinking of open world games I enjoy, and I honestly can't choose. I don't prefer one style over the other. Because I've played amazing open world games that were set in realism as well as fantasy. But I've also played terrible open world games that were set in realism as well as terrible fantasy ones.

I can't even say I like either of those over super realistic open world games. Because GTAV has one of the most beautifully detailed worlds I've ever seen, and it's entirely based on L.A.

I know it's kind of a boring answer, but I enjoy them all. As long as care is put into them, and they don't get repetitive (like Elder Scrolls, Fallout, FF13, Borderlands 1 and Pre Sequel, and others) I enjoy them.

[AuzzieWingman]

Hey, as long as travelling isn't a piece of shit all the time, any of them works for me.

[ShadowReplicant]

That distinction is pretty vague, I gotta say. Generally speaking, I prefer worlds that allow me to experience something new, something that I can't really experience in my day to day life. The Witcher, Fallout, Mass Effect (not really open world) - they all did just that. Red Dead Redemption and L.A. Noire did that, because they allowed me to live in a different historical period for a moment. On the other end of the spectrum are games like GTA V (pure realism), Watch_Dogs (dull semi-realism) or The Division (dull semi-realism). While I enjoyed GTA V, I wouldn't say the setting is particularly interesting and the same goes for Watch_Dogs and The Division. So, I guess I prefer "fantasy" over pure realism.

[closertim]

Definitely real life. Fuck this fantasy shit.

[DreakonXIII]

That distinction is pretty vague, I gotta say. Generally speaking, I prefer worlds that allow me to experience something new, something that I can't really experience in my day to day life.

 

I guess you need to get into my headspace a little bit, polls and discussion boards wouldn't be fun if every one had the perfect options for everyone.  The goal is to make you think about it a little bit (well, that's my goal anyways).  I'm only using existing games as examples to explain what I'm trying to say, take the specific games and their gameplay and "what's actually open world and what isn't" out of the equation.  To me, the world's in games nowadays fit two molds.

 

1. Either they base their world on reality, with feasible towns and villages and settlements reminiscent of what we currently have or might expect from different time periods and under certain circumstances.  To me, games like Dragon's Dogma, The Elder Scrolls, Fallout and The Witcher fit this mold.  They lean supernaturally at times obviously, but the foundation of the world is based in some form of reality.

 

2. Or they throw **** against the wall and see what sticks.  You want cities shaped like inverse planets?  Sure.  It's the future, you can do whatever you want.  You want fifty towns and locales all with different themes/inspirations from steampunk to oriental to european to a theme park connected to a desert prison via bottomless pits?  You want a world based around the technology to launch schools out of the ground?  Go for it.  To me, games like Final Fantasy (of a certain era) and Mass Effect often fit this mold.

 

I feel like there's a noticeable difference at least.  The games themselves aren't the question, but I guess which would you prefer in a new unnamed "open world" game (whatever that means to you) based on one of these two options.

Edited March 7, 2016 by DreakonXIII

[ShadowReplicant]

1. Either they base their world on reality, with feasible towns and villages and settlements reminiscent of what we currently have or might expect from different time periods and under certain circumstances.  To me, games like Dragon's Dogma, The Elder Scrolls, Fallout and The Witcher fit this mold.  They lean supernaturally at times obviously, but the foundation of the world is based in some form of reality.

 

2. Or they throw **** against the wall and see what sticks.  You want cities shaped like inverse planets?  Sure.  It's the future, you can do whatever you want.  You want fifty towns and locales all with different themes/inspirations from steampunk to oriental to european to a theme park connected to a desert prison via bottomless pits?  You want a world based around the technology to launch schools out of the ground?  Go for it.  To me, games like Final Fantasy (of a certain era) and Mass Effect often fit this mold.

 

I feel like there's a noticeable difference at least.

 

I think I understand what you're saying, it's just that those two categories aren't that clearly defined to me. Yes, the schools do fly in Final Fantasy VIII, but once you get inside, it's a fairly simple campus clearly based on real world campuses. The thing that makes it stand out is the visual design. Even FF VII to me is based more in reality than pure fantasy, when I look at the design of its towns and cities, or even things like trains. I mean Wutai even brings real world Chinese elements into a world where China doesn't exist. Mass Effect is another franchise that's deeply rooted in real world science and futurism. It's actually a pretty well researched piece of science fiction. The Citadel isn't just a random design to make things look bizarre and alien, its architecture and inner layout is dictated by our laws of physics etc.

 

It's actually really hard to think of a world that is completely disconnected from our reality, because in terms of storytelling and world-building in fiction you kinda need that link to something real. If everything is "just there" for some unknown reason, you get Final Fantasy XIII something that just doesn't make sense and you constantly have to question the existence and purpose of everything.

 

To me it's like a scale, with settings that just replicate the world as it is like GTA V on one end, and on the other something like Bloodborne, which takes elements, concepts and ideas from our world and uses them to create a hard to grasp dreamlike version of reality. It's safe to say I'll always find the latter more compelling.

 

Anyway, I didn't mean to say that the categories need to be more clearly defined, because obviously we're having an interesting discussion, or at least I think so

Edited March 7, 2016 by ShadowReplicant

[CediFonei]

A big reason why I play games is to delve into new and interesting settings that can't be conceived in real life. Granted, some of the examples you put down for psuedo-realism fall into that realm too, but in my opinion, the more fantastic and distinct a setting's experiences is, the better. Not that I'll turn my head completely down on a more grounded game, but that's where my preference lies.

 

Then again, that's my opinion of these settings in general, rather than only in the context of open world games... but even so, I think open world games- games that emphasize exploration and discovery of SOME sense- are most appealing with that kind of fantasy. It's part of why I'm looking so forward to No Man's Sky.