What constitutes an "open world" game?

himmatsj

Reputable
Feb 23, 2014
162
0
4,690
So yeah, I hear open world being thrown around a lot. What games actually fall under the definition?

Some that I have played but am not exactly sure are as follows: Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite, Deus Ex HR, Thief, Watch Dogs and Sleeping Dogs.

Thanks!
 
Solution
I think making an open world be story driven or even character driven is far harder than semi open. My favorite example of semi open is probably stalker (thats why i mentioned it).

There are games like mass effect 1 and 2 that are not really open world (more like semi) but "feel" very open. Dark souls (one, i only played the first part) for me felt open with the master key, and I have to say its a game Ive sunk many hours to, and I expect to do even more.
Same for similar open or semi open games.

Games that are very linear (even if very good) are games that I usually wont play twice in the same year... probably not even in the following 3 years.
An example would be bioshock one or two.
I really liked the games, but I dont see myself...

coleisme

Reputable
Jun 16, 2014
147
0
4,690
skyrim, watch dogs, sleeping dogs and gta v would fall under open world game id say any game that give you more freedom to explore not tide down to mission after mission like say call of duty or halo
 


coleisme pretty much hit the nail on the head. Open world games emphasize exploration and generally allow the player to choose which part of the world they wish to visit and when. Open world games certainly can have segments of the game world locked off for reasons of progression but the bulk of it should be open for exploration at all times and the player should be able to revisit locations that they have previously been to.
 
Deus Ex HR is not open world:
Open World usually means that your expirience does not follow a predestined path. For example:

Not Open world: you start at point A, and to get to point C, you need to go through point B. There can be multiple ways to archive B, but it is a requirement to reach C.

Open world: You start at point A, and you can get to point B,C,D,E,F,G in any order, but to get to point H, you need to have at least one of the previous points.


This can take multiple combinations.
The more combinations it gets, the more "open" the world feels.

There are games like GTA as mentioned above that have almost every area open from the start.
There are games like Stalker, where you get maybe 60% of the areas opened, but to get to the rest, you do need to follow a certain path at some point.
An extreme example of open world would be as mentioned before Skyrim, fallout 3, fallout 2, Oblivion, etc.

An extreme example of non open is definitely call of duty.

Usually open world games have more replay ability potential than non open world.
 
I'd call DE:HR or Thief more player driven, like the Witcher 2, but they're not fully open world. Yes, they both offer small sandbox areas, but ultimately the game still locks you into events and cuts out parts of the game when it wants the story to move forward. A big determining factor to whether a game is open world is if it cuts out areas you've already cleared, or leaves them open to revisit for no reason.

Games like Dark Souls or Overlord: Raising Hell fall right on the edge of this, but since they only get bigger as the game progresses and don't close off any past areas, I'd say they fall on the open world side.

Ofc, 'full' open world games include titles like Skyrim, Minecraft, or Sacred 2.

People tend to think full open world is better, but I'm not sure I agree. There are positive sides to the balance of freedom and focus that games like DE:HR or Dark Souls provide. They balance open gameplay with linearity, ensuring detail and unique content remains amazing, without railroading them down a tiny path or sacrificing exploration. If you look at Skyrim (not one of my favorite games) most of the content is copy-pasted dozens of times, if not hundreds. If you look at Dark Souls, for example, it keeps most of the sense of exploration but with a much higher density of unique content. That's why semi-open, semi-linear games like DE:HR, Dark Souls, Dishonored, or Dragon Age Origins feel more like a real adventure to me than games like Skyrim; you can still mostly go where you want, but without running through the same copy-pasted ruin 10000 times.

Some people call open world games more realistic... Also, not really true. There's nothing realistic about walking through a town made of the same 3 people copied over and over again with slightly different faces (sorry, picking on Skyrim again). I much prefer the system used in Demon's Souls/Dark Souls/Dark Souls 2, where in each game there are probably only ~15 NPCs, but they move about the open landscape, all uniquely voiced and uniquely written, adventuring or settling based on their own goals, personalities, and histories.

And when characters die in Dark Souls (if they die), they're dead. No getting them back, no reloading a save, sorry, you just lost the only high-level blacksmith in the game. That's realism. Not seeing "Jarl Balgruuf is Unconscious" on your screen and knowing that any second the psychic respawning guards will teleport through the doors to attempt an arrest (unless you hit f12 to undo the last 5 minutes).

Weeeeell... I guess I sort of turned that into a list of ways I think Dark Souls is better than Skyrim, rather than just an answer to what constitutes an open world game. o_o
 

himmatsj

Reputable
Feb 23, 2014
162
0
4,690
Rationale, I must agree with you on the fact that based on the definition of open-world, I much rather like semi open world games. Deus Ex HR still gave you lots of room to explore but the story was focused. IIRC, the only true open world game I have played must be Sleeping Dogs. Just played two hours, then stopped, cause there was this whole big city with absolutely no focus (for me at least). Apparently, Watch Dogs is the same, but for some reason I still got it. Probably because of the stealth/hacking mechanic. I NEVER have wanted to play stuff like Skyrim, GTA and Minecraft simply due to their vastness and openness.

Guess I am a more story/narrative driven kind of person then.
 
I think making an open world be story driven or even character driven is far harder than semi open. My favorite example of semi open is probably stalker (thats why i mentioned it).

There are games like mass effect 1 and 2 that are not really open world (more like semi) but "feel" very open. Dark souls (one, i only played the first part) for me felt open with the master key, and I have to say its a game Ive sunk many hours to, and I expect to do even more.
Same for similar open or semi open games.

Games that are very linear (even if very good) are games that I usually wont play twice in the same year... probably not even in the following 3 years.
An example would be bioshock one or two.
I really liked the games, but I dont see myself playing them again... thou Id like my friends to see them.
 
Solution