One critical component to RPGs that can often be overlooked: the sense of adventure

[DraQ]

All the greatest RPGs in history gave you room to roam. Fallout had you driving around in the desert and visiting other towns across a large map. Torment had many distinct areas and realities to get lost in. Arcanum seemed huge and wondrous right after crashing in the dirigible. And none of these are even considered to be "open world" RPGs.

Aren't they not considered "open world" only because the phrase wasn't used when they came up and when it gained popularity it was quickly associated with 3d action games?

Arcanum is very much open world by any reasonable definition. So are Fallouts. PS:T is not open world because your progress across different locations is explicitly driven by the plot.

How the hell are FO1/2 considered "open world"?
They're hub based.

So? You can get pretty much wherever you want pretty much whenever you want. That's the definition of open world.

 

[garren]

Avernum had a nice sense of adventure, you start out in a mysterious and already semi-barren and hostile underground world and gradually approach the borders of the prison civilization, with all sorts of things to discover and creatures lurking outside the borders.

 

[Catacombs]

You must gather your party before venturing forth, indeed.

I read this in "the voice."

 

[rusty_shackleford]

All the greatest RPGs in history gave you room to roam. Fallout had you driving around in the desert and visiting other towns across a large map. Torment had many distinct areas and realities to get lost in. Arcanum seemed huge and wondrous right after crashing in the dirigible. And none of these are even considered to be "open world" RPGs.

Aren't they not considered "open world" only because the phrase wasn't used when they came up and when it gained popularity it was quickly associated with 3d action games?

Arcanum is very much open world by any reasonable definition. So are Fallouts. PS:T is not open world because your progress across different locations is explicitly driven by the plot.

How the hell are FO1/2 considered "open world"?
They're hub based.

So? You can get pretty much get wherever you want pretty much whenever you want. That's the definition of open world.

Nearly every game that's not completely linear is open world by this definition.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[DraQ]

All the greatest RPGs in history gave you room to roam. Fallout had you driving around in the desert and visiting other towns across a large map. Torment had many distinct areas and realities to get lost in. Arcanum seemed huge and wondrous right after crashing in the dirigible. And none of these are even considered to be "open world" RPGs.

Aren't they not considered "open world" only because the phrase wasn't used when they came up and when it gained popularity it was quickly associated with 3d action games?

Arcanum is very much open world by any reasonable definition. So are Fallouts. PS:T is not open world because your progress across different locations is explicitly driven by the plot.

How the hell are FO1/2 considered "open world"?
They're hub based.

So? You can get pretty much get wherever you want pretty much whenever you want. That's the definition of open world.

Nearly every game that's not completely linear is open world by this definition.

Most games are not open world.
PS:T is not open world because most of the plot involves getting places (or getting out). You figure out how to get out of mortuary, then into Pharod's place, then out of Dead Nations, then out of Hive, then to Ravel, etc.
Deus Ex (any) is not open world, you move between discrete locations at the pace of the plot instead of traveling freely.
Most FPS games are not open world.
DOS2 is not open world - get out of Joy, then off the island, etc.

Fallouts, any TES, BG1, Arcanum, etc. are open world (BG1 is not pure as there are some areas that are off limit based on a more or less flimsy premise, but vast majority of the world is freely accessible at any moment).

The gray area are games where you can technically roam unrestricted but geography or topology makes it easy to gate off the content or determine how exactly you will progress - say Wizardry 8.

 

[jungl]

I got the opposite feeling from divinity original sin 2. It reminded me of evil islands. You are going from one really long and wide convoluted 3D rts style map to another. Does not feel open world. Open world in game design definitely something you see more in the past then now in all kinds of video game genres.

 

[Open Path]

How the hell are FO1/2 considered "open world"?
They're hub based.

Darklands is an Open World also and only offers a series of images with text to represent most locations and events. So is Mount and Blade with its mixed map system.

As Draq said Open World defines a game design with free roam AND the possibility to do several activities -quests, dungeon crawling, conquest- whenever you want, not depending of a closed narrative, chapters, traditional levels opening entire zones and posibilities. It's about the freedom to experience the world in the full sense, not simply the absence of invisible walls or a non totally linear design.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

All the greatest RPGs in history gave you room to roam. Fallout had you driving around in the desert and visiting other towns across a large map. Torment had many distinct areas and realities to get lost in. Arcanum seemed huge and wondrous right after crashing in the dirigible. And none of these are even considered to be "open world" RPGs.

Aren't they not considered "open world" only because the phrase wasn't used when they came up and when it gained popularity it was quickly associated with 3d action games?

Arcanum is very much open world by any reasonable definition. So are Fallouts. PS:T is not open world because your progress across different locations is explicitly driven by the plot.

How the hell are FO1/2 considered "open world"?
They're hub based.

So? You can get pretty much get wherever you want pretty much whenever you want. That's the definition of open world.

Nearly every game that's not completely linear is open world by this definition.

Most games are not open world.
PS:T is not open world because most of the plot involves getting places (or getting out). You figure out how to get out of mortuary, then into Pharod's place, then out of Dead nations, then out of Hive, then to ravel, etc.
Deus Ex (any) is not open world, you move between discrete locations at the pace of the plot instead of traveling freely.
Most FPS games are not open world.
DOS2 is not open world - get out of Joy, then off the island, etc.

Fallouts, any TES, BG1, Arcanum, etc. are open world (BG1 is not pure as there are some areas that are off limit based on a more or less flimsy premise, but vast majority of the world is freely accessible at any moment).

The gray area are games where you can technically roam unrestricted but geography or topology makes it easy to gate off the content or determine how exactly you will progress - say Wizardry 8.

So you consider VTMB — the quintessential hub-based game — to be open world?

 

[DraQ]

I got the opposite feeling from divinity original sin 2. It reminded me of evil islands. You are going from one really long and wide convoluted 3D rts style map to another. Does not feel open world. Open world in game design definitely something you see more in the past then now in all kinds of video game genres.

Open world and feeling of adventure are either orthogonal or even slightly inversely correlated because open world games have less tools to restrict player or force them out of comfort zone.

 

[Harthwain]

So you consider VTMB — the quintessential hub-based game — to be open world?

It's not about the existence of hubs. It's about when you can access them.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

So you consider VTMB — the quintessential hub-based game — to be open world?

It's not about the existence of hubs. It's about when you can access them.

You guys are using a definition of open world that is not the same as generally agreed upon by the gaming community.

 

[Harthwain]

So you consider VTMB — the quintessential hub-based game — to be open world?

It's not about the existence of hubs. It's about when you can access them.

You guys are using a definition of open world that is not the same as generally agreed upon by the gaming community.

I don't know what definition the gaming community uses. Here is a definition from wiki:

In video games, an open world is a virtual world in which the player can explore and approach objectives freely, as opposed to a world with more linear and structured gameplay.

You seem to equate open world with lack of loading screens.

 

[mondblut]

So you consider VTMB — the quintessential hub-based game — to be open world?

It's not about the existence of hubs. It's about when you can access them.

You guys are using a definition of open world that is not the same as generally agreed upon by the gaming community.

If "gaming community" believes that "open world" equals "no loading screens", we are not obliged to agree with retards.

We've been playing open world games such as Wizardry 7 or Ultima 6 (and even earlier) before that "gaming community" got their first popamole console as a xmas gift. We are here to teach them, not the other way around.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

So you consider VTMB — the quintessential hub-based game — to be open world?

It's not about the existence of hubs. It's about when you can access them.

You guys are using a definition of open world that is not the same as generally agreed upon by the gaming community.

I don't know what definition the gaming community uses. Here is a definition from wiki:

In video games, an open world is a virtual world in which the player can explore and approach objectives freely, as opposed to a world with more linear and structured gameplay.

You seem to equate open world with lack of loading screens.

Maybe you should have kept reading.

In video games, an open world is a virtual world in which the player can explore and approach objectives freely, as opposed to a world with more linear and structured gameplay.[1][2] While games have used open-world designs since the 1980s, the implementation in Grand Theft Auto III (2001) set a standard that has been used since.[3]

 

[rusty_shackleford]

If "gaming community" believes that "open world" equals "no loading screens", we are not obliged to agree with retards.

Changing the definition of a word to fit your meaning undermines the entire point of having a language and makes communication impossible.

 

[mondblut]

Maybe you should have kept reading.

In video games, an open world is a virtual world in which the player can explore and approach objectives freely, as opposed to a world with more linear and structured gameplay.[1][2] While games have used open-world designs since the 1980s, the implementation in Grand Theft Auto III (2001) set a standard that has been used since.[3]

While games have used open-world designs since the 1980s, it wasn't true open world according to 20-something soyboy writing for wired.

Who is he to fucking lecture us, again?

 

[mondblut]

If "gaming community" believes that "open world" equals "no loading screens", we are not obliged to agree with retards.

Changing the definition of a word to fit your meaning undermines the entire point of having a language and makes communication impossible.

Tell that to the wired dumbfuck who comes out in 2017 thinking he is there to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Harthwain]

So you consider VTMB — the quintessential hub-based game — to be open world?

It's not about the existence of hubs. It's about when you can access them.

You guys are using a definition of open world that is not the same as generally agreed upon by the gaming community.

I don't know what definition the gaming community uses. Here is a definition from wiki:

In video games, an open world is a virtual world in which the player can explore and approach objectives freely, as opposed to a world with more linear and structured gameplay.

You seem to equate open world with lack of loading screens.

Maybe you should have kept reading.

In video games, an open world is a virtual world in which the player can explore and approach objectives freely, as opposed to a world with more linear and structured gameplay.[1][2] While games have used open-world designs since the 1980s, the implementation in Grand Theft Auto III (2001) set a standard that has been used since.[3]

"Kept reading" what? I don't see the contradiction.

 

[mondblut]

If "gaming community" believes that "open world" equals "no loading screens", we are not obliged to agree with retards.

Changing the definition of a word to fit your meaning undermines the entire point of having a language and makes communication impossible.

Tell that to the wired dumbfuck who comes out in 2017 thinking he is there to reinvent the wheel.

:drumroll:

Spoiler

LMAO. Every single time. Remember kids, this "person" gets to define what is and is not an "open world" in games.

 

[DraQ]

Open is that which is not closed off. In games that are not open world but at some point transition to allowing free travel and revisiting of locations (usually those damn JPGs, usually due to acquiring a mode of transport) it is often said that the world/game "opens up" after that point.

I don't really see any room for ambiguity there - world is either open or closed off, either totally or with some exceptions. Whether or not it is continuous or not and how exactly does loading new data work in the game's engine are non-factors here.

Conversely being open world or not is mostly non-factor when it comes to the feeling of openness or adventure - for example Oblivion might be open world but doesn't have any sense of openness or adventure.

 

[V_K]

I don't really see any room for ambiguity there - world is either open or closed off, either totally or with some exceptions. Whether or not it is continuous or not and how exactly does loading new data work in the game's engine are non-factors here.

Ambiguity happens when some parts of the world aren't immediately accessible and only become so after some plot event. Examples include the whole of western Arcanum (Glimmering forest etc.), Gargoyle world in Ultima 6, Valley of the mines in Gothic 2 (and generally, most dungeons in Gothic games). So I have to agree there's a bit of a gray area here, just not on the loading screens side. And then there's the whole confusion between open world (go wherever) and sandbox (do whatever) concepts - they often go together but not necessarily so.
Still that reference to GTA on Wiki is hillariously retarded.

 

[Jacob]

Dark Souls,

Dark Souls is great in giving this adventure feeling despite having a very compact world mostly consisting of cramped dungeons. Go to one claustrophobic, confusing, and dangerous dungeon => ended up in something totally different and amazing. It really is one of the greats of the seventh generation video games.

I want that openness. I crave that sense of adventure. If I just wanted to stick to one area, to never venture out and discover what I had never expected to see, I'd forget about RPGs and fantasy novels and decent sci-fi movies and lead the life of a wage slave normie boomer instead. RPGs with variety and room to roam set my soul free.

Challenge/ difficulty factor comes into play more than anyone realizes. If you can beat the orcs roaming around outside of the Friendly Fire Inn in BG1 it wouldn't give the same feeling of adventure. Same about the enemy placement in Gothic games. Similarly, if you know for sure which way you should go in Fallout games. That is why I think New Vegas is inferior in this aspect.

[fluent]This is why eeryone should play Kenshi, it's good[/fluent]

For proper adventure you need party. You can't adventure alone.

ELEX wants to speak with you.

 

[Nano]

So you consider VTMB — the quintessential hub-based game — to be open world?

Hm? The hubs after Santa Monica only open as you progress in the plot.

 

[Reinhardt]

ELEX wants to speak with you.

It's shit.