What is "open world"?

[Gleitfrosch]

I am a fan of definitions. Especially, when discussing something, it is important that all have the same understanding of the terms used.

I read several posts about open world games and it is very clear, that people have different definitions for the term.

For me an open world games is a game, where I can do whatever I want and am not forced to follow a specific path. I can ignore the main quest and still find enough things to do. The world does not have to be seamless, as long as I have the freedom of choice.

How do you define "open world"?

[Perry]

i define open world as a game where im forced to do the main quest and forced to be the good guy

[Nyxtus]

When you walk too far on a planet it teleports you back to your ship.

That's all you need to know.

[McGeorgeOfTheJungle]

Main quest wise I saved Barret and did nothing else for the MQ, and did side stuff and im 35 hours in. The planet surface may be barren in a sense, but once you get outpost construction up a notch it becomes fun.

But people expecting FO4 type open world may be disappointed.

[McGeorgeOfTheJungle]

Originally posted by Nyxtus:

When you walk too far on a planet it teleports you back to your ship.

That's all you need to know.

When you walk to the edge of the map in fallout games and can't go further...

[Perry]

OMG I CANT EXPLORE THE ENTIRE PLANT IN AN OPEN WORLD GAME!!!!

[Zengrath]

I think people use open world way to loosely these days. sadly almost every game almost is called "open world" when in my eyes they aren't open world. For me if a game mostly forces you to follow a single path from beginning to end, that's linear game play. If a game on other hand has a huge world to explore with big zones where you can go off and do anything you want including long interesting side quests that are completely separate from main story, crafting and gathering, exploring, etc. that's mostly what open world is about, having a world you can explore, collect things and have fun doing stuff that isn't the main quest. Pretty much every MMO is open world, especially MMO's like elder scrolls online because you can do any zone and any quest line in any order you want, world scales to your level and you can do whatever.

Some people however are claiming games that have these small zones with a few side quests but your forced to finish main quest in that zone before going to next zone still open world. I don't think those type of games are open world, because your still linearly going from one zone to next, even if zones are big. but again people seem to have a much looser definition of open world these days. for me open world means you can go anywhere in world you want regardless of main quest progress, you may get yourself killed easily but you can go if you want.

[Zyrconia]

If you are a fan of definitions, this is not open world. But Bethesda haven't been truly open wold since the ancient times. If you count loading into interiors, then pretty much never.

Something like Assassin's Creed Odyssey is.

On the other hand, while I too like definitions, I was always of the opinion that true open worlds and fake open worlds where the map is broken into chunks and there are loading screens, are functionally identical in any practical and game enjoyment sense.

And I always hate it when good game design is ruined by open world bs. If you have a non open world game and convert it to open world, all you need to do is remove the loading screen and make it seamless. You don't have to change the design, make the map huge and add "activities" evenly spread across the map. You just end up with a list of chores.

So I prefer open world for the seamless exploration, but if you have to turn the game into map mess, better keep the loading screens.

Small hand crafted encounters and environment VS scale. That's why I don't care about 1000 planets. Give me 3 planets, but great.

But rant over, this is the least open world Bethesda game. Which might not be a bad thing.

[MostlyPanda]

Originally posted by Zyrconia:

If you are a fan of definitions, this is not open world. But Bethesda haven't been truly open wold since the ancient times. If you count loading into interiors, then pretty much never.

Something like Assassin's Creed Odyssey is.

On the other hand, while I too like definitions, I was always of the opinion that true open worlds and fake open worlds where the map is broken into chunks and there are loading screens, are functionally identical in any practical and game enjoyment sense.

And I always hate it when good game design is ruined by open world bs. If you have a non open world game and convert it to open world, all you need to do is remove the loading screen and make it seamless. You don't have to change the design, make the map huge and add "activities" evenly spread across the map. You just end up with a list of chores.

So I prefer open world for the seamless exploration, but if you have to turn the game into map mess, better keep the loading screens.

Small hand crafted encounters and environment VS scale. That's why I don't care about 1000 planets. Give me 3 planets, but great.

But rant over, this is the least open world Bethesda game. Which might not be a bad thing.

Fallout 3 was pretty open world, Skyrim was also open world. I could ride on horse back from 1 part of the map to the other.

in Starfield... I can't even walk between 2 landing points on a planet. Hell, I can't even access New Atlantis different parts without loading screen

[Zyrconia]

Hence least open world Bethesda game. Because not really and open world game.

It might be even less open world than Outer Wilds.

[opus132]

All this focus on open world just feels like companies misunderstood what makes certain type of games attractive to people.

It's not the open world, it's the sandbox and LARPing aspect that is key. Stalker was a fairly linear game, not at all "open world" and yet it probably has more in common with Skyrim or Fallout 3 than most so called "open world" games out there.