Would this game be open world?

[Scar]

a game like this thats open world and stuff would be immensely great

[Lokiel]

Originally posted by Bahuemac:

I don't think I would want this to be open world. Assassin's Creed: Syndicate already did Victorian London in a big open world. In a big, boring open world. Open world does not always mean great game. Open world games have disadvantages over linear or semi-open world/hub-based ones.

Oh God, thank you for that comment... I'm actually a bit fed up with that trend of every damn single game being an open world. Most of the time they confuse length of the game with content and quality.

[Clown Reemus]

Semi-open means you have a world. And loading screens, a lot of them, while being transited from one location to the other.

[SunEarthMewsic]

Originally posted by Bahuemac:

I don't think I would want this to be open world. Assassin's Creed: Syndicate already did Victorian London in a big open world. In a big, boring open world. Open world does not always mean great game. Open world games have disadvantages over linear or semi-open world/hub-based ones.

The only advantage I care about is sandbox and post-game.
A crucial linear disadvantage that I find cringe worthy is the sheer difficulty to continue experimenting with your tools after you beat the main boss.

[Clown Reemus]

Originally posted by ≋R≋i≋z≋i≋n≋g≋:

Originally posted by Bahuemac:

I don't think I would want this to be open world. Assassin's Creed: Syndicate already did Victorian London in a big open world. In a big, boring open world. Open world does not always mean great game. Open world games have disadvantages over linear or semi-open world/hub-based ones.

The only advantage I care about is sandbox and post-game.
A crucial linear disadvantage that I find cringe worthy is the sheer difficulty to continue experimenting with your tools after you beat the main boss.

The likes of you are the reason games are now "sandboxes" instead of art.

[SunEarthMewsic]

Originally posted by Clown Reemus:

Originally posted by ≋R≋i≋z≋i≋n≋g≋:

The only advantage I care about is sandbox and post-game.
A crucial linear disadvantage that I find cringe worthy is the sheer difficulty to continue experimenting with your tools after you beat the main boss.

The likes of you are the reason games are now "sandboxes" instead of art.

My average playing time for a game is 100+ hours for sandbox/open-world games.
My average playing time for linear games is less than 20 hours.

This is per title.

$60 for a "pretty" game I'll shelf after less than 10 hours vs. $60 for a sandbox game I will probably play for months.

If you were trying to guilt me, I don't feel guilty for spending money frugally.

[アキ君]

Originally posted by Clown Reemus:

The likes of you are the reason games are now "sandboxes" instead of art.

You win the worst post on the Vampyr board.

[Clown Reemus]

Originally posted by ≋R≋i≋z≋i≋n≋g≋:

Originally posted by Clown Reemus:

The likes of you are the reason games are now "sandboxes" instead of art.

My average playing time for a game is 100+ hours for sandbox/open-world games.
My average playing time for linear games is less than 20 hours.

This is per title.

$60 for a "pretty" game I'll shelf after less than 10 hours vs. $60 for a sandbox game I will probably play for months.

If you were trying to guilt me, I don't feel guilty for spending money frugally.

There is more to the games than the amount they take from your life. If you do not feel guilty over the "lost quality reality" it is not anyhow a virtue. But you have, without a doubt, have heard that somewhere already...

[Angrypillow]

Originally posted by Stuhlfleisch:

I would love, to see a game like "Witcher 3: Wild Hunt", but it is themed, around you being a Vampire, instead of a witcher. With the same love to detail and immersiveness, it would be my all time favorite game. :D

This is the type of game I've been aching for ever since I played VTMB for the first time.

[Ailes]

Originally posted by ≋R≋i≋z≋i≋n≋g≋:

Originally posted by Clown Reemus:

The likes of you are the reason games are now "sandboxes" instead of art.

My average playing time for a game is 100+ hours for sandbox/open-world games.
My average playing time for linear games is less than 20 hours.

This is per title.

$60 for a "pretty" game I'll shelf after less than 10 hours vs. $60 for a sandbox game I will probably play for months.

If you were trying to guilt me, I don't feel guilty for spending money frugally.

There are people cannot or do not want to spend so much time in one and the same game. You cannot determine a game's quality just by looking how much hours you'll spend in it. If you go with that you might scrap all singleplayer games entirely and go with PvP multiplayer only, because fighting against other humans creates many possibilities and variations of otherwise same-ish encounters that would become boring quickly in singleplayer or co-op games. That is why some people can bear to play one competitive shooter for many years and perhaps on only one or two maps, all the time. This is also why some devs/publishers push multiplayers into games that were never really meant to be played in multiplayer (Spec Ops: The Line).

I prefer a strong, intense, short singleplayer linear experience in the case of Vampyre over some big, open but mostly boring open world that thinks filling its world with countless meaningless collectibles and perhaps even taking away means to find them (without paying via microtransactions first) in a reasonable manner (like maps) already equals a great game (Assassin's Creed(: Syndicate)).

[Scar]

Originally posted by Bahuemac:

Originally posted by ≋R≋i≋z≋i≋n≋g≋:

My average playing time for a game is 100+ hours for sandbox/open-world games.
My average playing time for linear games is less than 20 hours.

This is per title.

$60 for a "pretty" game I'll shelf after less than 10 hours vs. $60 for a sandbox game I will probably play for months.

If you were trying to guilt me, I don't feel guilty for spending money frugally.

There are people cannot or do not want to spend so much time in one and the same game. You cannot determine a game's quality just by looking how much hours you'll spend in it. If you go with that you might scrap all singleplayer games entirely and go with PvP multiplayer only, because fighting against other humans creates many possibilities and variations of otherwise same-ish encounters that would become boring quickly in singleplayer or co-op games. That is why some people can bear to play one competitive shooter for many years and perhaps on only one or two maps, all the time. This is also why some devs/publishers push multiplayers into games that were never really meant to be played in multiplayer (Spec Ops: The Line).

I prefer a strong, intense, short singleplayer linear experience in the case of Vampyre over some big, open but mostly boring open world that thinks filling its world with countless meaningless collectibles and perhaps even taking away means to find them (without paying via microtransactions first) in a reasonable manner (like maps) already equals a great game (Assassin's Creed(: Syndicate)).

@clown well your just a clown.

@Bahue why wouldn't you want to spend so much time in a game?, on the days you are bored, and you stare at your games, you wont see any playability at all, and mainly you know the story, so you already know what is going to happen and your options are limited.

about your pvp opinion, no pvp doesn't provide a ♥♥♥♥ ton of possibilities and variations, it provides some except after playing pvp for a few hours, you already know the possibilities, only difference is some pvp players have a brain otherwise its like fightin an NPC.

Sp games are great for the main reasons
1) your fun wont be spoiled by hackers/cheaters
2) you can play without internet
3) your resources, items that you crafted and mounts (that die) die due to your friend being reckless
4) you can take your time and you dont have to rush or worry about being raided
5) depending on the game, you can explore classes, or explore and do more in a sandbox world

Skyrim great graphics at time of release, and it was played by majority of people for months because it was that great.

Fallout is a popular game series and yet again played out for a while

AC despite its flaws has a good story and a meh decent open world free roam

[Ailes]

Originally posted by Trickster:

@Bahue why wouldn't you want to spend so much time in a game?, on the days you are bored, and you stare at your games, you wont see any playability at all, and mainly you know the story, so you already know what is going to happen and your options are limited.

That is why I'm not saying entirely "no" to open world. Or PvP. But just the same I wouldn't want any game to turn open world. Some devs/publishers and players seem to go all nuts as soon as they hear "open world", but it is not the magical recipe for turning every otherwise bad game into a golden money milking machine.

Originally posted by Trickster:

about your pvp opinion, no pvp doesn't provide a ♥♥♥♥ ton of possibilities and variations, it provides some except after playing pvp for a few hours, you already know the possibilities, only difference is some pvp players have a brain otherwise its like fightin an NPC.

I only know PvP games to be played thousands of hours. eSports and the like are playing PvP, not co-op or singleplayer. Even your Skyrim will eventually run dry. And the games made by Bethesda are not as golden as you think. There are people who find them pretty boring actually, and I think I know what this has to do with (a mixed bag of players not being patient enough and devs failing at providing enough guidance to give proper entry into the world).

Originally posted by Trickster:

Sp games are great for the main reasons
1) your fun wont be spoiled by hackers/cheaters
2) you can play without internet
3) your resources, items that you crafted and mounts (that die) die due to your friend being reckless
4) you can take your time and you dont have to rush or worry about being raided
5) depending on the game, you can explore classes, or explore and do more in a sandbox world

Some of these points are the reason why I still play singleplayer sometimes, or why I play some multiplayer titles lone-ish. But what you mention can be achieved without forcing open world. If there is actually a bigger idea behind it than "Open world rocks!" then it's okay, I played some very great open world games. But some have run dry a longer time ago already (Assassin's Creed).

Originally posted by Trickster:

AC despite its flaws has a good story and a meh decent open world free roam

AC's story has turned into rubbish. All it has been doing for several years now is repeating the same Assassins-vs-Templars arms race. They've run out of ideas and I'm glad the series has been put on a semi-halt. AC3, maybe Black Flag, were the only titles that still had some impressive story aspects. Syndicate was boring and predictable as hell.

[Scar]

Black flag was awesome to begin with, but the thing Ubi failed to do, is give us a wide range of custom ships etc and forcing us to only use one...... out of curiosity what games (PVP) do you know people got thousands of hours out of?, because the only game i can think of is ARK but people vary around 1k-2k hours, quarter if not half being SP while the rest MP....

anothing thing to add to beneficial SP side is
time, since some gamers have to go to work they cannot keep up in MP which makes SP just as good

[Lokiel]

Originally posted by Trickster:

Originally posted by Bahuemac:

There are people cannot or do not want to spend so much time in one and the same game. You cannot determine a game's quality just by looking how much hours you'll spend in it. If you go with that you might scrap all singleplayer games entirely and go with PvP multiplayer only, because fighting against other humans creates many possibilities and variations of otherwise same-ish encounters that would become boring quickly in singleplayer or co-op games. That is why some people can bear to play one competitive shooter for many years and perhaps on only one or two maps, all the time. This is also why some devs/publishers push multiplayers into games that were never really meant to be played in multiplayer (Spec Ops: The Line).

I prefer a strong, intense, short singleplayer linear experience in the case of Vampyre over some big, open but mostly boring open world that thinks filling its world with countless meaningless collectibles and perhaps even taking away means to find them (without paying via microtransactions first) in a reasonable manner (like maps) already equals a great game (Assassin's Creed(: Syndicate)).

@clown well your just a clown.

@Bahue why wouldn't you want to spend so much time in a game?, on the days you are bored, and you stare at your games, you wont see any playability at all, and mainly you know the story, so you already know what is going to happen and your options are limited.

about your pvp opinion, no pvp doesn't provide a ♥♥♥♥ ton of possibilities and variations, it provides some except after playing pvp for a few hours, you already know the possibilities, only difference is some pvp players have a brain otherwise its like fightin an NPC.

Sp games are great for the main reasons
1) your fun wont be spoiled by hackers/cheaters
2) you can play without internet
3) your resources, items that you crafted and mounts (that die) die due to your friend being reckless
4) you can take your time and you dont have to rush or worry about being raided
5) depending on the game, you can explore classes, or explore and do more in a sandbox world

Skyrim great graphics at time of release, and it was played by majority of people for months because it was that great.

Fallout is a popular game series and yet again played out for a while

AC despite its flaws has a good story and a meh decent open world free roam

As for me, I play games mainly because I'm taken by a story. I have that feeling of being "inside" a movie. Most of the games I play are single-players, story-driven RPG or strategy games. In RPG, for instance, you can't say that Baldur's gate, Neverwinter Nights, Planescape Torment, Torment Tides of Numerena, Dragon Age: Origins, pillars of eternity are boring. I actually replay a lot of those quite often because their story is so captivating and none of them are open world. I actually let got avec Dragon Age when it became open world because it forced them to abandon the "origin" system that gave so much of the flair of the first game.

Replaying a good linear RPG is fun, like watching again and again your favourite movie. Our point here is that too many games nowadays try so hard to be open world because it's the new "big thing" and not hard enough to just be fun. It's like a car manufacturer who would think that if a car is fast, it is enough and so pour all his energy into making fast car. But in the end, too many of those "fast" cars are ugly, not confortable, not practical and can go on anything but big city roads.

[Scar]

Originally posted by Lokiel:

Originally posted by Trickster:

@clown well your just a clown.

@Bahue why wouldn't you want to spend so much time in a game?, on the days you are bored, and you stare at your games, you wont see any playability at all, and mainly you know the story, so you already know what is going to happen and your options are limited.

about your pvp opinion, no pvp doesn't provide a ♥♥♥♥ ton of possibilities and variations, it provides some except after playing pvp for a few hours, you already know the possibilities, only difference is some pvp players have a brain otherwise its like fightin an NPC.

Sp games are great for the main reasons
1) your fun wont be spoiled by hackers/cheaters
2) you can play without internet
3) your resources, items that you crafted and mounts (that die) die due to your friend being reckless
4) you can take your time and you dont have to rush or worry about being raided
5) depending on the game, you can explore classes, or explore and do more in a sandbox world

Skyrim great graphics at time of release, and it was played by majority of people for months because it was that great.

Fallout is a popular game series and yet again played out for a while

AC despite its flaws has a good story and a meh decent open world free roam

As for me, I play games mainly because I'm taken by a story. I have that feeling of being "inside" a movie. Most of the games I play are single-players, story-driven RPG or strategy games. In RPG, for instance, you can't say that Baldur's gate, Neverwinter Nights, Planescape Torment, Torment Tides of Numerena, Dragon Age: Origins, pillars of eternity are boring. I actually replay a lot of those quite often because their story is so captivating and none of them are open world. I actually let got avec Dragon Age when it became open world because it forced them to abandon the "origin" system that gave so much of the flair of the first game.

Replaying a good linear RPG is fun, like watching again and again your favourite movie. Our point here is that too many games nowadays try so hard to be open world because it's the new "big thing" and not hard enough to just be fun. It's like a car manufacturer who would think that if a car is fast, it is enough and so pour all his energy into making fast car. But in the end, too many of those "fast" cars are ugly, not confortable, not practical and can go on anything but big city roads.

I wouldnt say open world is a new big thing, but people do enjoy freedom in able to do what they like, or if the game is multiplayer i.e GTA online then they enjoy playing together too, or SP, you can spend endless hours roleplaying without a story, red dead redemption pretending your some nasty criminal cowboy, raiding convoys and shooting or kidnapping people with your lasso and so on....

Skyrim well classes help the game become more diverse as you can be a leader of an assassins and other guilds, and a vampire or werewolf lord.

the only linear story driven game i actually enjoyed is Life is Strange, that got me hooked and was wow, whether a car is fast or not it still has to stick to the speed limit but the looks is what attracts people

[Lokiel]

Originally posted by Trickster:

Originally posted by Lokiel:

As for me, I play games mainly because I'm taken by a story. I have that feeling of being "inside" a movie. Most of the games I play are single-players, story-driven RPG or strategy games. In RPG, for instance, you can't say that Baldur's gate, Neverwinter Nights, Planescape Torment, Torment Tides of Numerena, Dragon Age: Origins, pillars of eternity are boring. I actually replay a lot of those quite often because their story is so captivating and none of them are open world. I actually let got avec Dragon Age when it became open world because it forced them to abandon the "origin" system that gave so much of the flair of the first game.

Replaying a good linear RPG is fun, like watching again and again your favourite movie. Our point here is that too many games nowadays try so hard to be open world because it's the new "big thing" and not hard enough to just be fun. It's like a car manufacturer who would think that if a car is fast, it is enough and so pour all his energy into making fast car. But in the end, too many of those "fast" cars are ugly, not confortable, not practical and can go on anything but big city roads.

I wouldnt say open world is a new big thing, but people do enjoy freedom in able to do what they like, or if the game is multiplayer i.e GTA online then they enjoy playing together too, or SP, you can spend endless hours roleplaying without a story, red dead redemption pretending your some nasty criminal cowboy, raiding convoys and shooting or kidnapping people with your lasso and so on....

Skyrim well classes help the game become more diverse as you can be a leader of an assassins and other guilds, and a vampire or werewolf lord.

the only linear story driven game i actually enjoyed is Life is Strange, that got me hooked and was wow, whether a car is fast or not it still has to stick to the speed limit but the looks is what attracts people

Being attracted to something and that thing being pleasurable are two vastly different things. I should know: I have ex-girlfriends.