Incline Evolution of open world games

[PorkyThePaladin]

I was recently thinking about the evolution of open world games since the very beginning. This is very interesting to me, because I consider this genre to be the holy grail of gaming, where the ultimate games will be these giant alternate worlds people will get lost in and do whatever they want. It will be more simulation than playing through some particular premade story.

Anyways, open world games go back a long time, and have been used since almost the very beginning. For example, an early RPG like Ultima 1 can be thought of as an open world game, since its overworld map was completely open, and you could go anywhere (though the cities had their own separate maps). The first Zelda was also kind of open world, back in 1987.

To me, it seems as though there have been 3 "flowerings" of the open world approach, that is periods when that type of games made significant leaps forward. The first one was in 1992, when Ultima VII: The Black Gate came out. While earlier games had open worlds, they were just open maps, but U7 introduced actual world simulation. There were houses stocked with furniture and movable items, things that could be used and interacted with, NPCs with detailed schedules. It was a real open world. This game alone inspired everyone from Bethesda (unfortunately) to Piranha Bytes (fortunately) to Larian (who knows...).

The 2nd flowering was in early 2000s, as open world games went 3D and third/first person, and increased the scope and depth of gameplay. RPGs like Gothic and Gothic 2 took Ultima 7's basic approach and built on it, improving combat, exploration, and other aspects while retaining much of what made it great. On the non-RPG side, Grand Theft Auto 3 came out in 2001 and showed how to create virtual cities on a massive scale. Sure, much of the gameplay was fairly shallow, but if anyone recalls playing it back then, it was mind blowing to be able to move around this huge, detailed city.

For the rest of 2000s and early 2010s, open world games were stuck in a rut. Some decent ones were made, such as Fallout: New Vegas, Risen, and Red Dead Redemption, but they mostly used formulas created by earlier games, and brought little new stuff to the table. At the same time, the genre was dominated by terrible mass consumption games such as Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3, and Ubisoft's shitfest.

But I believe since 2015 or so, the third flowering is here. First, Witcher 3 showed what can be done with beautiful writing and characterization, even though it lacked in some other areas. While these things aren't typically associated with open world games, it was still something new for the genre, and set new standards in that area. Then, in 2017, Zelda: Breath of the Wild burst on the scene, redefining world interactivity, exploration and overall quality of what an open world can be like. ELEX was another quality open world game that came out that year, and pushed the boundaries in certain areas, such as vertical exploration and the massive number of quests and quest choices. In 2018, Kingdom Come: Deliverance came out, and although it proved disappointing to me in various areas, it cannot be denied that they are still pushing the boudaries of what has come before, in things like historical authenticity and simulation of various elements. And now, we can expect a whole batch of quality open world games in the next few years: Cyberpunk 2077, ELEX 2, KCD2, RDR2 on PC, Ghost of Tsushima. So if you are a fan of this genre, things are definitely looking up compared to many others, and to 5-10 years ago. What do you guys think?

 

[Mustawd]

I say bring back a tight linear experience. Open world has beem overplayed.

 

[Jacob]

Evolution isn't real.

 

[mondblut]

There were Darklands and Daggerfall, then things started going down the shitter.

Still better than "tight linear experience" crap, tho'.

 

[Jacob]

I like the "tight linear experience" of a 14 years old, but the "loose experience" from a 30 years old isn't as bad as people make it out to be.

(I was talking about a 2004 game and a 30 year old game, obviously)

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Open World is not a synonym for non-linear. There are many early RPGs that allow the player to move around a 'world map', but this abstracted movement is not the same as being able to freely move around an actual environment. To qualify as Open World, a game should satisfy the following criteria:

1. Uniform scale: Objects in the world should be represented in proper proportion to the player-character(s) and to each other. There can be some leeway for interior spaces being larger than they appear externally, but the same rule should apply within each interior space and well as to the 'overworld' as a whole.
   
2. Continuous movement: The game world should be freely scrolling rather than divided into separate screens.
   
3. Sufficiently large: Although it will always be debatable as to what constitutes a sufficiently large size, games covering only a small area should be excluded. It is acceptable for the game world to represent a larger area than it actually is, but there is a lower bound for the actual size of the game world.
   
4. Non-linear: Arguably a game that fulfills the above criteria but is nonetheless linear in nature should be excluded, but since it's a pointless waste for an Open World game not to be non-linear, perhaps this isn't a necessary criterion.

The first Open World RPG was The Faery Tale Adventure, developed in 1986 and released at the beginning of 1987.

 

[Mustawd]

The first Open World RPG was The Faery Tale Adventure, developed in 1986 and released at the beginning of 1987.

Wasn’t that game awful? You just spent all day running around.

 

[Tweed]

There were Darklands and Daggerfall, then things started going down the shitter.

Still better than "tight linear experience" crap, tho'.

Pretty much this.

I like having agency in a world worth exploring. Nowadays most open worlds are big static, insipid sandboxes. I think one of the biggest problems of most modern open worlds is that the game puts you as the center of the universe and then never reacts to what you do. Daggerfall is the only game in the TES series where you don't start off as the most important person in the world, you're just a friend of the emperor doing him favor and you get caught up in a game of politics. Darklands just has you surviving at the start and trying to pursue fame and then you get caught up in stopping the Apocalypse.

 

[Shinji]

This is why I'm not a big fan of terms like "open world", "non-linear", "metroidvania", and so on. They sound like buzzwords, and when people use these words in a conversation everyone has a hard time finding out the correct definition -- if there ever was one.

It can be hard to determine which games can be considered "open world" or not.
For example, is Dark Souls an open world game? It certainly has a vast world to explore, and the exploration is seamless, with no loading screens or pauses.
What about Zelda for the NES? It sure has a vast world as well, but everything is loaded in their own separate "screens".
Final Fantasy for the NES? Again, big world, movement is restricted in the beginning but later on you're free to explore the entire world.

This is more of a personal opinion, but I don't believe the character-to-world ratio should be taken into account when determining if a game is "open world" or not. Sure if everything is scaled to the player size, the environment looks bigger and the interaction happens at a different level. But the overall freedom of exploration is the same -- go wherever you want, whenever you want -- just abstracted away. And I believe that is one of the defining points of "open world" games: freedom of exploration -- regardless of the character-to-world ratio.

We can all agree that the world size is important for an "open world" game, but how much? Take Skyrim for example, it surely has a lot of towns in the game world, but what about the size of these towns? They can fit around 50 or 80 people at maximum. If you were to create a realistic-sized town it would probably contain some thousands of people at least -- even if it's the medieval era -- an this one town would occupy the entire "continent" of Skyrim. So as you can see, Bethesda scaled things down to make it possible to fit the entire continent in the game disc.

But what if a game developer wanted to make a RPG with only one town, but with a realistic scale? And let's say the entire game takes place within this city's walls. Would people still call it "open world", even with only one town and no mountains, forests or caves to explore? My guess is that yes they would, but the point is, having a relatively large area with freedom of exploration can be enough to call a game "open world".

Lastly, people claim that "open world" games must be "non-linear".
What is a "linear" game? It implies having only one path -- like walking through a corridor -- with no freedom to go left or right, up or down, only forward.
Thus, "non-linear" games must be the exact opposite, giving the player freedom to go or do whatever they want.

Though one thing that I noticed is that people tend to use "non-linear" exclusively to refer to exploration. Thus, "non-linear exploration". It sounds redundant.
But what about the story? Is it "non-linear"?

Not really, I think. If you take The Witcher 3 as an example, it does have branching quests but all of these branches are pre-determined, implying a limit, a boundary. So how is this "non-linear" if it's still a corridor, but with 2 or 3 different linear paths you can choose?

Extra long stuff

The way I see, the only way to achieve true "non-linear" story is not through writers, but through a simulation. Thus, there is no definition of a "quest", there is only a simulation running, and things happen according to its current state -- and not according to the player's input. There is no "right" or "wrong" path. There is no "progression". The simulation does not care and does not reward -- the player is just another cog in the machine.

But... it would be boring.
Since the simulation does not care, there is a 50% chance that something pleasant will happen to the player, and 50% of chance that something unpleasant will happen.
Since it's a simulation, a lot of things will not be pre-determined -- other than the initial state -- thus being impossible to make things happen in a entertaining and meaningful way, like in a movie or novel. After all, in a simulation the focus is not entertainment, but the simulation of a complex system.

That's why we have games, pre-determined, centered around the player, and focused on entertainment.

TLDR
Open world games are nothing but large spaces with freedom of exploration, and inside this large space there is a lot of linear and pre-determined content.

 

[luj1]

Open-world is not a genre.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Open-world is not a genre.

And neither is Metroidvania. These are elements of game design that determine how the game plays, not genres.

PorkyThePaladin is, as usual, blinded by his own experience. He brings up three 'flowerings' of open-world games, but either forgets or is unaware of the first one: Elite (1984). Two English blokes code a game to answer a simple question: "How large a universe can we fit into 32Kb of RAM?" Elite was the answer, and it was heard world-wide: A soddin' big one. And thus the stage was set for others to try to either emulate their work, or surpass it. Quite a challenge that one.

One bloke who rose to the challenge was Mike Singleton. As one of the great coding maestros of the 1980s, he's best known for his two strategy games on the Spectrum: Lords of Midnight (1984) and Doomdark's Revenge (1985). While not open-world games per se, they certainly had the scale and ambition of one; previously released strategy games could have something between 50-100 locations, while Midnight had 4000 and Doomdark 6000. Singleton didn't actually meet the challenge of a proper open-world game until Midwinter in 1990, a game so vast in scope it boggles the mind how he fit it into 512 Kb of RAM. Although not an RPG it ticks off every other mark on the "Open World" checklist Zed Duke of Banville posted earlier.

Another effort worth mentioning in this department is Sid Meier's Pirates! (1987) which has the entire Caribbean open to any yarring player worth his britches, with no travel restrictions placed upon the player and absolute freedom granted in what he seeks to do in the game.

And as Midwinter was inspired by games like Mercenary (1986), other games were influenced by Midwinter. Midwinter 2: Flames of Freedom (1991) actually had to scale back its open-worldyness to fit all those islands into the game, Damocles (1990) is another game with a sodding big universe, but it's the 'next generation' of games like Ultima VII (1992) and Frontier (1993) that really get the 'open-world' ball rolling... and then watch as that ball kinda bounces into the bushes as both gamers and the gaming industry get to grips with the first-person perspective, polygon-based games and the internet. It wasn't until around the year 2000 that the open-world concept got back on track... and even then I'm not certain Porky's examples are the best ones.

But yeah, we need to know where we came from in order to know where we're going. Video games are no exception.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

One bloke who rose to the challenge was Mike Singleton. As one of the great coding maestros of the 1980s, he's best known for his two strategy games on the Spectrum: Lords of Midnight (1984) and Doomdark's Revenge (1985). While not open-world games per se, they certainly had the scale and ambition of one; previously released strategy games could have something between 50-100 locations, while Midnight had 4000 and Doomdark 6000. Singleton didn't actually meet the challenge of a proper open-world game until Midwinter in 1990, a game so vast in scope it boggles the mind how he fit it into 512 Kb of RAM. Although not an RPG it ticks off every other mark on the "Open World" checklist Zed Duke of Banville posted earlier.

To clarify, my list of criteria applies to Open World games in general, which aren't necessarily RPGs. Midwinter certainly counts as an Open World game, as does Elite. As much as I love Sid Meier's Pirates!, travel occurs on an abstracted world map (as with overland travel in Ultima, Final Fantasy, Pool of Radiance, and many other RPGs), and I think the term Open World should be restricted to games in which you travel through the world directly.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

I say bring back a tight linear experience. Open world has beem overplayed.

You can't overplay something that's clearly superior as a design approach. Open world is the spatial version of C&C, and being able to go wherever you please as opposed to being stuck in corridors/tiny maps is the freedom that everyone normal should crave. There might be some issues associated with that, but the correct way to handle this is to overcome them within the open world game paradigm, instead of going back to inferior paradigms.

PorkyThePaladin is, as usual, blinded by his own experience.

Aren't we all, by the very definition? In fact, this is exactly why I said "to me, it seems ..." in the original post. This thread is meant to invite discussion, and if your post didn't sound so full of butthurt, it would contribute to that in a more productive way.


So where do you guys see open world games going in the near future?

I think the recent commercial and critical success of games like Breath of the Wild will finally kill off or at least weaken the curse of the constant handholding and encourage more active gameplay. I also believe (or at least hope) that there will be more emphasis on simulation and emergent gameplay.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

PorkyThePaladin is, as usual, blinded by his own experience.

Aren't we all, by the very definition? In fact, this is exactly why I said "to me, it seems ..." in the original post. This thread is meant to invite discussion, and if your post didn't sound so full of butthurt, it would contribute to that in a more productive way.

Two sentences out of a decently long post = "so full of butthurt".

You open up the discussion, but start with an erroneous statement. I joined the discussion to correct that and bring perspective. Your reaction reveals your true agenda, you only wish for your opinon to be validated by others. Hiding behind a Bandwagon argument doesn't help either.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Two sentences out of a decently long post = "so full of butthurt".

3. You open up the discussion, but start with an erroneous statement.

4. I joined the discussion to correct that and bring perspective.

5. Your reaction reveals your true agenda, you only wish for your opinon to be validated by others.

6. Hiding behind a Bandwagon argument doesn't help either.

Six now.

So, back to the topic at hand, eh?

 

[Silva]

Open World is not a synonym for non-linear. There are many early RPGs that allow the player to move around a 'world map', but this abstracted movement is not the same as being able to freely move around an actual environment. To qualify as Open World, a game should satisfy the following criteria:

1. Uniform scale: Objects in the world should be represented in proper proportion to the player-character(s) and to each other. There can be some leeway for interior spaces being larger than they appear externally, but the same rule should apply within each interior space and well as to the 'overworld' as a whole.
   
2. Continuous movement: The game world should be freely scrolling rather than divided into separate screens.
   
3. Sufficiently large: Although it will always be debatable as to what constitutes a sufficiently large size, games covering only a small area should be excluded. It is acceptable for the game world to represent a larger area than it actually is, but there is a lower bound for the actual size of the game world.
   
4. Non-linear: Arguably a game that fulfills the above criteria but is nonetheless linear in nature should be excluded, but since it's a pointless waste for an Open World game not to be non-linear, perhaps this isn't a necessary criterion.

The first Open World RPG was The Faery Tale Adventure, developed in 1986 and released at the beginning of 1987.

Ultima 4 preceded that crap by 1 year.

 

[Mustawd]

You can't overplay something that's clearly superior as a design approach. Open world is the spatial version of C&C, and being able to go wherever you please as opposed to being stuck in corridors/tiny maps is the freedom that everyone normal should crave. There might be some issues associated with that, but the correct way to handle this is to overcome them within the open world game paradigm, instead of going back to inferior paradigms.

PorkyThePaladin what specifically are fhe features of open world that you like so much?

I ask this because you can have an open world game, but it doesn’t need to be a huge world. It can be a smaller experience, but rich with choices and world building and things to do.

Or you can have an incredibly large open world in which size is one of the large factors in making it feel like a simulated world.

So my question is: Is it the possibility of choices in how you interact with an open world that attracts you? Or is it the large sim-like alternate reality that you like? Or is it both?

The reason I ask is because I have nothing against the former. In fact if an open world game is short, say 20-30 hrs, this gives it replayability for me. Each playthrough can be vastly different because the small size of the game can make choices very impactful due to scale.

The issue I have with the latter is the size and scope, and what I look for in a game. Let’s ignore the fact that many modern versions of open world games attempt to have a large size, but fail to fill it with enough interesting things to do, or even worse begin to resuse assets and mechanics for budgetary reasons. That’s more an issue with execution than design principle.

But my main problem with such a size and scope of these large open world games is that the content outlasts the gameplay. At some point you are just repeating the same things over and over and over if you’re looking to experience what all the world is offering you. They become single player MMOs in function, if not in form, because it’s exploring the world which becomes the main attraction. Not the gameply itself.

And hey, if that’s the cat’s meow for you, then that’s great. But for me, I’d rather have smaller experiences I can replay a few times and get varied playthroughs.

But maybe I’m missing the point. Lately, I’ve been craving shorter and shorter experiences, so there’s a chance I’m just biased at experiencing something smaller in scooe due to my limited time. I might also be biased against poor execution. I read such awful things about the emptiness of games such as DA: Inquisition or that The Witcher 3 has 300+ hrs of gameplay for a single playthrough, and it doesn’t make me very excited to go and try these new open world rpgs.

Would be curious to hear your thoughts Porko. I might have some additional points to make, but this post is already quite long.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

PorkyThePaladin what specifically are fhe features of open world that you like so much?

There are many, such as the freedom, the ability to roam and explore that you just don't have in a non-open world game. But the ultimate reason is that it's most like real life, and for me, the ultimate potential of games is to create interesting alternate worlds.

I ask this because you can have an open world game, but it doesn’t need to be a huge world. It can be a smaller experience, but rich with choices and world building and things to do.

Or you can have an incredibly large open world in which size is one of the large factors in making it feel like a simulated world.

So my question is: Is it the possibility of choices in how you interact with an open world that attracts you? Or is it the large sim-like alternate reality that you like? Or is it both?

It's both to a degree. The exact size is not the most important thing, but there is a certain minimum threshold. The quality of stuff matters of course, that is a high quality smaller open world is better than a low quality larger world (hence Gothic >>>>>> Bethesda). But size doesn't hurt either, as long as you keep the quality high.

The reason I ask is because I have nothing against the former. In fact if an open world game is short, say 20-30 hrs, this gives it replayability for me. Each playthrough can be vastly different because the small size of the game can make choices very impactful due to scale.

This seems like a separate discussion. I don't like 20-30 hour long games, but I dunno if that disqualifies it as an open world game. Probably debatable.

But my main problem with such a size and scope of these large open world games is that the content outlasts the gameplay. At some point you are just repeating the same things over and over and over if you’re looking to experience what all the world is offering you. They become single player MMOs in function, if not in form, because it’s exploring the world which becomes the main attraction. Not the gameply itself.

And hey, if that’s the cat’s meow for you, then that’s great. But for me, I’d rather have smaller experiences I can replay a few times and get varied playthroughs.

But maybe I’m missing the point. Lately, I’ve been craving shorter and shorter experiences, so there’s a chance I’m just biased at experiencing something smaller in scooe due to my limited time. I might also be biased against poor execution. I read such awful things about the emptiness of games such as DA: Inquisition or that The Witcher 3 has 300+ hrs of gameplay for a single playthrough, and it doesn’t make me very excited to go and try these new open world rpgs.

Would be curious to hear your thoughts Porko. I might have some additional points to make, but this post is already quite long.

Well, this is my point in the previous post to you. Bad gameplay/content is not a function of being open world. A game doesn't necessarily have to dilute itself due to its size. For example, Witcher 3 has great writing throughout, as does New Vegas, despite being large open world games. Is there some repetition? Sure, any large game will have repetition, because guess what, even RL does. So if you want a highly crafted experience, where every quest is 100% unique, and every encounter is hand-designed to be special, then yea, you will definitely like short linear games. But if you enjoy the basic gameplay of an open world game (and if said gameplay is good fundamentally), then there is nothing wrong with some repetition, as long as there is some variety.