I think I’m done with open world games

[werepossum]

I dont care if they get bigger or smaller. I want more stuff in them.
I want the world of GTA 5 with the goodies of Fallout 4.

Hmm. Grand Stolen Fallout . . . That could work.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I dont care if they get bigger or smaller. I want more stuff in them.
I want the world of GTA 5 with the goodies of Fallout 4.

That's sorta Mad Max, but with less underground/indoor stuff. Actually Mad Max with FO/Skyrim's level of interior exploration, cave systems, etc... scaled up maybe 2x-4x the size of Mad Max? And make the combat harder, more of a skyrim/oblivion thing instead of the 'batman autofighting'. That would be phenomenal.

 

[HitAnyKey]

I dont care if they get bigger or smaller. I want more stuff in them.
I want the world of GTA 5 with the goodies of Fallout 4.

This would be cool and as another poster mentioned Mad Max, I know what you mean. I don't play many games as much anymore due to being crazy busy in RL but I have always wanted a really good Police / Fireman game with a really thriving and interactive city.

Also, I want to see more Open World games with better housing, crafting and especially inventory systems. I think in this day and age you should be able to store stuff in the trunk of your car or hide a safe in a burned out building somewhere.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Also, I want to see more Open World games with better housing, crafting and especially inventory systems. I think in this day and age you should be able to store stuff in the trunk of your car or hide a safe in a burned out building somewhere.

Fallout 2 let you store stuff in your car's trunk, I appreciate that. Kind of gave you a 'box on the go' kind of thing. In addition, a few of the open world survival games have concepts like crates, safes, etc... Subnautica has craftable floating boxes which let you sort of deposit caches around as you see fit. I'm sure there's a ton more examples, but that stuff does tend to be relegated to the 'open world survival' games. A lot of the ones like Skyrim/Obliv have boxes which periodically empty/refresh, so they aren't appropriate for long-term user storage.

 

[Skel]

For me it really depends on the game itself. The more I enjoy the game play the more I don't mind the open world. It's only when the game starts getting stale that I really notice and don't care for the open world. I do have an issue with most RPGs where it takes me a bit to get into the story-line. Skyrim I enjoyed for the most part. I did end up having to take a long break for a couple of months before I could come back and finish up everything, and I do mean everything. Except for the rolling repeating side quests from the clans I did complete everything else. I had close to a thousand hours into the game total, and some of that was just walking around everywhere to up my levels to max it out. I'm not sure if it having it be smaller would have helped the game at all. I do think that it does get a grinding burnout that doesn't really go away. If anything, I would just like better side quests. Go to rando dungeon 43 and grind the same dungeon only with a slightly different layout gets old.

 

[bystander36]

This would be cool and as another poster mentioned Mad Max, I know what you mean. I don't play many games as much anymore due to being crazy busy in RL but I have always wanted a really good Police / Fireman game with a really thriving and interactive city.

Also, I want to see more Open World games with better housing, crafting and especially inventory systems. I think in this day and age you should be able to store stuff in the trunk of your car or hide a safe in a burned out building somewhere.

The Witcher 3 has you store things in a satchel on your horse. Of course you did not have to physically access the satchel from the horse, that was automatic, but you could upgrade your storage space by upgrading the satchel.

 

[bystander36]

I'd argue that your premise is flawed from a few standpoints, namely that extra food on plates at restaurants is the cause of obesity in the US, and that there's a correlation between the drive to eat what's provided (survival tactic) and complete game content provided (probably an aspect of OCD, even a minor case). I actually feel the latter when it comes to achievements, and enjoy games without achievements more than those with because I don't feel obligated to complete them (which I do, again, probably because of minor OCD).

Some may feel the same, that because within an hour of playing Skyrim you can get 35 quests that each lead to areas giving you another 35 quests, you end up in a mire of quest hell leading you all over a continent with no real direction, no serious rewards (for most quests), and generally 'whack things til they die and stare at pretty flowers' gameplay. I don't agree with it, but I get it.

The impulse to always clean your plate is definitely a factor in our overweight culture, though it clearly isn't the only factor. I don't know if it is something people are taught, or a genetic impulse, but the majority of people in American live by the rule of always finishing everything on their plate (apparently, in Japan, they always leave some food as a general rule). I find it comical how often people will tell me they are stuffed, then keep eating everything on their plate. If asked, they say that they paid for it, they are going to eat it.

 

[magomago]

Much like everyone stated here, the Witcher 3 did Open World rightas a contained Single Player Game.

Skyrim still wins for its extend-ability because you can mod/adjust everything far beyond what it was originally meant to be.

If Witcher 3 is modded to the same degree, it would feel odd and out of place in its world. Even the Side Quests feel tight, well done, and weaved into the Overall world. Skyrim on the other hand, with its purposeful Vagueness on who you are, allows for all the cool extensions.

Skyrim seems to have way more Quests and things to do- part of it driven by the fact that the Quests don't necessarily seem to have anything to do with each other (i.e. Theives Guild, Dark BrotherHood, Civil War, etc. etc. All of these could be done without any connection to your background and achievements...).

* Witcher 3's Story is vastly more developed than Skyrim
* Witcher 3 creates much more emotional connection to the character
* Open World doesn't feel anywhere near as constrained
* Quests are more developed overall and feel less grindy (i.e. Gather 10 Herbs for Bla Bla). I don't think I've had a quest that didn't have some basic meat built into it...whereas Skyrim has tons of pure Grind
* Witcher 3's graphics are more impressive for 2015 than Skyrim was for 2011.

*Skyrim has way more Quests in General
*Skyrim quests are much more packaged and create interesting mini-stories of no importance
*SKyrim is vastly more extendable. By purposely being vague on many points, you can incorporate more into the world, and it gains major wins on that end. In fact, its extendbility means that certain things don't need to be released in perfect (i.e. massive high res graphics for example, of which skyrim was still criticised for in the form of some blocky ass textures for 2011) form because they know Modders will come into play with their own Visions.

I think that probably sums up what I feel: Skyrim lets you tap into their vision and make it your own, whereas Witcher wants to share a very deep/beautiful/specific, yet controlled, vision..

 

[guidedbyechoes]

I prefer a big area with a good story line. Most open world games get boring and are just packed with filler. I like a game that is somewhere in the middle.

 

[BFG10K]

On the other hand, I can totally appreciate wanting to be led by the nose on a very entertaining trip down a narrow, exquisitely scripted corridor over a short period of time. Both experiences can be good. Personally I want even bigger worlds to explore, but I also enjoy a short, well-written linear adventure. But for value, my 1,400 hours of Fallout 4 for $90 sure beats my ~10 hours of Call of Duty X for $60.

Call of Duty games have the exact opposite problem given they're basically like playing interactive cutscenes with no depth or player investment.

The comparison I'm making is to semi-open worlds which also offer freedom without having to navigate a ridiculous slab of land or a chickenpox map of icons.

 

[BFG10K]

So average is 253 hours yet you're complaining there's too much content, sound an awful lot like people are actually enjoying the fact that there's a lot of content. Yes I'm 33 I've been gaming since I old enough to pick up a controller, I can blow through a game like Skyrim picking up all the quests and do them in 100 hours because I know how to effectively grind and play a character and min/max what I need. If you can't take another persons word for it then posting a screenshot isn't going to prove any more. And you can cut out the hyperbole, no one is going to max every trait out because a mage isn't going to need sword training and rogues don't need to carry around plate armour.

253 hours is far too long for me. A typical 30 hour semi-linear game means I can experience all significant content in eight such games while having freedom that linear games don't give me. So that's Rage, Thief 3, Thief 4, Tomb Raider 2013, all three Stalker games, and Betrayer (or substitute your eight favorite semi-linear games). I'd much rather play those eight games than a single bloated open world game.

Not sure what "if you can't take another persons word for it then posting a screenshot isn't going to prove any more" even means, except for a total dodge. You've failed to provide evidence of your 80-100 maxed out claim so that makes it unsubstantiated.

Also next time clarify what you mean instead of accusing others of hyperbole when they read your exaggerated claims. That way when you use words like "all" we know it actually means "what I consider important" in your speak.

Land mass is not an issue because 99% of the games content in terms of quests, persons of interest, objectives, tools, etc. These are all instanced inside separate areas which aren't constrained by the size of the map, in fact the game obviously suffers from scaling issues where the insides of some places are bigger than their outside, notably houses and town footprints. The actual distance is completely irrelevent because there's several mechanims in the game that literally allow you to teleport right across the map and I highlighted those, the actual travel distance between any 2 arbitrary points is extremely small meaning not a huge amount of your time is actually spent traversing the land (unless you're naive and choose to walk rather than use a quicker method)

I can't believe we're still having this conversation after the elementary picture I put up. Here it is again:

If you think the landmass makes no difference to content, prove it by putting all those icons inside the red square.

Fast-travel/internal dungeons are irrelevant. The point is that chickenpox infestation of icons can only be supported by a large slab of land to spread them out enough.

I said skip parts of the game IF you don't want to spend as much time on the game. Yeah you do have mental issues if you don't. That's like buying a 2 litre bottle of soda and then drinking it all, and then complaining 2l of soda is too much. You know you can just put the bottle down at any time and stop, there's no cosmic rule that states you have to finish the entire thing in one go, you can actually just stop and then finish the rest later or not even have the rest. Yes actually that does make you mental because it means that you're impulsive and you lack self control.

Actually it's more like constantly buying 2 liter Coke bottles with the intention of only ever drinking 200ml from each, then tipping out the rest.

Tell me, do you buy 5 soup packets with the intention of only eating one and throwing out the other four? Any sane person would say "stop being stupid and just buy one packet".

Which is a load of nonsense because the amount of time you actually spend on the game is completely up to the player, you can follow the main story and be done in like 10-20 hours or you can stretch the game out to be hundreds of hours. You do know that you can actually choose what you want to do? It seems stupid that this has to be pointed out. If you want 30 hours then just play the main story and 10 hours of side quests, boom, done.

Yep, I chose zero hours just like I chose not to buy food/drink quantities with the intention of constantly skipping 80% of it.

See that thread title? It says "I think I'm done with open world games". It doesn't say "I'm going to stop PrincessFrosty from playing open world games".

Yet here you still are, desperately trying to show me the error of my ways like some kind of religious doorknocker.

 

[bystander36]

You do realize that a game with 20 hours of total game play costs the same as one with 300 hours of game play. If they cut that 300 hours to 30, do you think it would have been cheaper to buy? It's going to cost the same no matter what. So what if you don't spend the time on all the side quest, you are paying the same cost either way. Play the way you want.

Sure, you could choose to not play games with a lot of added side quests, because you don't want to have unwanted side quests, but you are missing out on a lot of games, and likely the future of most RPG's, when all you have to do is not play those side quests.

As far as your 2 liter of soda goes. You have the option to buy a smaller version of the same drink for less money. With games, you don't have that option. They all cost $50-$60 if they are a AAA game. They cost the same whether they are 10 hours of game play, or 500 hours. You could even put it back in the refrigerator and drink the rest at another time (play multiple characters and do different quests on each).

 

[OCNewbie]

Exploration is one of my favorite things about big, open world games. As long as the world feels unique in all of the areas, I'm not sure if I care how big it is. I love feeling like there are areas still left to see. Not liking that is akin to wishing the Earth was smaller, because there's just too much variation and wanting to be able to get to a point where one can say, "Welp, I've now seen it all". I'll put hundreds of hours into a game, IF it's engaging and I can get lost in the experience. A big, thoroughly varied, open world game is probably the most likely model for that to happen for me.

 

[bystander36]

I'd add that while not liking a game because it has more quests than you care to complete comes off as completely insane. But if you don't like the quests that are given, or the game play, then just say that is what you don't like. Games like The Witcher 3, Skyrim, Dragon Age: Inquisition, etc. are designed to play at your own pace and are very easy to pick and choose your quests to do or skip. If this is all you dislike, which seems to be all your posts are about, then you simply have a bad mind set and are in for a rude awakening, as almost all RPG's these days are moving to open world games.

If you don't like Skyrim because in their implementation of making an open world, sandbox game, without a strong story or enjoyable quests, or without finely tuned character development that can easily have balance issues, then that would be completely understandable.

You have complete control over how big of an adventure you have, but you can't change the game play, and quality of the quests or story.

 

[norseamd]

Skyrim had way too small of a world map, and it had cities that were so small that Bethesda should be reported for blasphemy and treason to the Inquisition.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

253 hours is far too long for me. A typical 30 hour semi-linear game means I can experience all significant content in eight such games while having freedom that linear games don't give me. So that's Rage, Thief 3, Thief 4, Tomb Raider 2013, all three Stalker games, and Betrayer (or substitute your eight favorite semi-linear games). I'd much rather play those eight games than a single bloated open world game.

See the problem I have is this part "I can experience all significant content", people have repeatedly told you that this is a mental barrier, it's not real, it exists only in your head. You need to understand that your idea of satisfaction comes purely from meeting whatever mental rules you construct for yourself. In this case is labeling certain types of content "significant" which is fair enough, because some content is relevant to the main story and some isn't.

In Skyrim the HUD/menu tells you what is a side quest and what isn't, you can mark the current main quest and then go do it, there's very little in the way of gating the main story due to levels, people have speedrun the game in like 45 mins, you don't need to be high level to complete it.

So it begs the question, if you can do the main story of skyrim in 30 hours and that's your criteria for good value then why not just play the main story of skyrim and skip the side quests. The ONLY reasons given so far are mental reasons that exist inside your head and have nothing to do with the actual game.

Now, one can argue “just play the main quest” or similar, but you’ll miss out on the guts of the game, not to mention finishing up with a weak character. There’s also a deeper problem if I have to self-prune content everywhere, akin to a music album where I’m constantly skipping songs.

None of these are valid. Again missing out on the guts of the game and finishing up with a weak character are purely mental constructs you've made in your head and you feel uncomfortable with. I don't even know what "missing out on the guts of the game" could mean other than missing the main story so this doesn't even make much sense to me. It's like you have 2 simultaneous needs, both to finish the entire game and all the side quests, and also to only do 30 hours. So naturally any game that cannot meet both these simultaneous criteria becomes not worth playing in your eyes.

The solution according to you is to skip on possible great games just because you don't have the self control to play part of the game and not all of it.

Not sure what "if you can't take another persons word for it then posting a screenshot isn't going to prove any more" even means, except for a total dodge.

It means I'm not going to bother reinstalling the game and digging out an old save game to prove my point, because all that will likely achieve is you claiming I photoshopped the image or whatever. Either take my word for it or don't, I'm trying to actually engage in honest conversation. If we're simply going to deny what the other person says is true in reality there's literally no point in discussing anything.

If you think the landmass makes no difference to content, prove it by putting all those icons inside the red square.

That proves nothing.

Fast-travel/internal dungeons are irrelevant. The point is that chickenpox infestation of icons can only be supported by a large slab of land to spread them out enough.

This is mind boggling crazy mental gymnastics. So you complain about the swath of land and the implications it has to traveling across it, but then say fast-travel is irrelevant. And you're told that reasonably 90% of the content takes place inside internal dungeons but they're also irrelevant. If you mentally chop out entire sections of the game then yes you're going to have a very muddled understanding of the game and of reality in general.

Actually it's more like constantly buying 2 liter Coke bottles with the intention of only ever drinking 200ml from each, then tipping out the rest.

Tell me, do you buy 5 soup packets with the intention of only eating one and throwing out the other four? Any sane person would say "stop being stupid and just buy one packet".

Right, but these AAA games are not tailor made for you, unless you have hundreds of millions of dollars to have these games built exclusively for you. In reality these games need to suit a vast number of players to be financially viable, and most players expect and enjoy huge amounts of content. The reason that this business model works is because you make 1 game of 1 size which has a core story which is a manageable length which anyone can reasonably cope with and get decent value from. And then you have a bunch of lesser important quests like mage/thief guild, and then hundreds of spinkled around minor quests. And you opt into doing however much content you're comfortable with.

It's funny because a lot of other players can cope with much less than 100 hours in skyrim and feel like they got the story they wanted and a decent length play time and so good value for money. But you're in that camp of meeting the exact same criteria but complain because there's more content than you can be bothered to do.

Yet here you still are, desperately trying to show me the error of my ways like some kind of religious doorknocker.

I'm saying that your problem with the game is something internal to you and that's something if you acknowledge you can consider taking steps to correct or at least mitigate. Everyone has mental ticks like that, I've had similar in the past, I used to arrange my windows on my desktop so they were aligned to a grid, and decided to break that habit when I found myself actually being irritated when they weren't aligned, at that point it's just a burden on your mind.

It's the same reason people grind in MMOs, it's because it plays on that sense of OCD that people have to complete things, same reason that achievements exist and tend to be gamed by people, same with % completion bars, same when people spend 100's of pounds on steam trading cards to complete sets. And get levels...

You have this game with all of its addons, it's like...it's OK you don't HAVE to play and complete everything. Pick a main story, do it, if you want to do more then do more, if you've had enough then put it down. There's mechanisms specifically built into the game to aid you doing this, quest markers, fast travel and whatever.

 

[cbrunny]

For me this is a toss up, really. Some games that have dynamic worlds can be great fun to go through. Others that are way less dynamic... not so much.

I have played ~40 hrs of Skyrim and quit due to boredom. Barely played any of it. Wondered why I played it at all. Just Cause 2 and 3 both caught my attention and held it with no boredom for about the same length of time - then I finished those two games. I'm not necessarily saying Skyrim is worse than JC3, but I am saying that a game with no end serves no real purpose. Fallout 4 held me for longer than Skyrim, but eventually the story was just so shit I felt like there was no reason to do anything.

You can have open world that is also linear. Think waaaayyyy back to Dragon Warrior 1. Open world, linear story. Lots of RPGs with this kind of approach too that are also great. Tons.

A more modern example of this done correctly is Final Fantasy 13-2. FF13 was one big alley, no fun. FF13-2 was basically the opposite of this. Go anywhere you want - and there's tons of places to go. A dramatic improvement over FF13 in just about every way, except the story was absolute dogpoo.

Having spent thousands of hours in FFXIV, I can say what makes that game fun is not the game but the people.

Borderlands was also great fun because I played with my wife.

 

[pmv]

Poll needs 4th option 'open world games are fine as they are for those who like that style of game'.

I think one problem is open world games tend to demand the player make up their own coherent story as they go. Or they just start to seem like a series of random tasks that don't amount to anything really immersive. Fixed-path games seem to have stronger story-lines (though not always) and do the work of telling a coherent tale for you.

Hmmm, this may be reflective of real life. A surfeit of choices can lead to a loss of sense of meaning. This might be why people like religion and tradition.

 

[pmv]

Skyrim had way too small of a world map, and it had cities that were so small that Bethesda should be reported for blasphemy and treason to the Inquisition.

I'd take those "cities" as representative abstractions, rather than literal depictions of the entirety of cities. You have to employ a kind of 'translation convention'.

 

[cbrunny]

I think one problem is open world games tend to demand the player make up their own coherent story as they go. Or they just start to seem like a series of random tasks that don't amount to anything really immersive. Fixed-path games seem to have stronger story-lines (though not always) and do the work of telling a coherent tale for you.

This. A billion times, this.

 

[bystander36]

Poll needs 4th option 'open world games are fine as they are for those who like that style of game'.

I think one problem is open world games tend to demand the player make up their own coherent story as they go. Or they just start to seem like a series of random tasks that don't amount to anything really immersive. Fixed-path games seem to have stronger story-lines (though not always) and do the work of telling a coherent tale for you.

Hmmm, this may be reflective of real life. A surfeit of choices can lead to a loss of sense of meaning. This might be why people like religion and tradition.

I kind of agree, and kind of disagree. Skyrim does have distinct easy to follow main quest lines for the main game, 2 expansions and guilds. That said, they may not be the most well designed stories, or maybe the game play isn't all that refined. All those other quests are just random filler, which you can choose to ignore, but in general, The Elder Scrolls games have never had great stories, so I can see how you would feel that this is what open world games need to be.

The Witcher 3, shows a game which is both open world, with a strong story line to follow. You can choose to stay on the main story, or you can choose to do 2ndary story lines, and witcher contracts. Dragon Age: Inquisition is also like this. It has a strong story, and random quests that are not meaningful.

While Skyrim's story isn't the best, the idea that an open world game can't have a strong story isn't really true. Even in Skyrim, they clearly separate the main story, guild stories and random quests. It's just the story and game play doesn't seem as refined as it could be, but The Witcher 3 shows that they can be.

 

[werepossum]

Exploration is one of my favorite things about big, open world games. As long as the world feels unique in all of the areas, I'm not sure if I care how big it is. I love feeling like there are areas still left to see. Not liking that is akin to wishing the Earth was smaller, because there's just too much variation and wanting to be able to get to a point where one can say, "Welp, I've now seen it all". I'll put hundreds of hours into a game, IF it's engaging and I can get lost in the experience. A big, thoroughly varied, open world game is probably the most likely model for that to happen for me.

That is me exactly. When I find some little campsite or note that I have missed in Fallout 4, I'm thrilled. I like the exploring, and I wish the map was much bigger. I'm 1,400 hours in and I've already expanded with content with several mods.

Poll needs 4th option 'open world games are fine as they are for those who like that style of game'.

I think one problem is open world games tend to demand the player make up their own coherent story as they go. Or they just start to seem like a series of random tasks that don't amount to anything really immersive. Fixed-path games seem to have stronger story-lines (though not always) and do the work of telling a coherent tale for you.

Hmmm, this may be reflective of real life. A surfeit of choices can lead to a loss of sense of meaning. This might be why people like religion and tradition.

I agree to the extent a particular person needs some coherent story. Personally I'm fine just wandering around and rubbernecking, with the occasional pitched battle. I'm concerned with immersion in the moment, not on some larger, long term scale.

 

[escrow4]

What Bethesda should do is release an engine and game with the plot depth of CD Projekt and Planescape Torment mixed with the world building of TES and Mass Effect. But with a brand spanking new engine, not Gamebryo and a clean slate to banish as much old cruft and bugs as possible. Plus those rubbish animations.

 

[BFG10K]

See the problem I have is this part "I can experience all significant content", people have repeatedly told you that this is a mental barrier, it's not real, it exists only in your head. You need to understand that your idea of satisfaction comes purely from meeting whatever mental rules you construct for yourself. In this case is labeling certain types of content "significant" which is fair enough, because some content is relevant to the main story and some isn't.

I don’t need to “understand” your opinion because I don’t follow your imaginary religion. Whatever problem you have is in your head and you need to deal with it. I can’t help you.

So it begs the question, if you can do the main story of skyrim in 30 hours and that's your criteria for good value then why not just play the main story of skyrim and skip the side quests. The ONLY reasons given so far are mental reasons that exist inside your head and have nothing to do with the actual game.

I never said that. Are you trolling or severely confused?

To repeat myself yet again: experiencing all significant content within 30 hours (or thereabouts) while having non-linear gameplay. Or to put it another way, a typical semi-open game of which I listed numerous examples before.

Open world games don’t follow that criterion, including Skyrim. You either have a 100+ hour time sink or you’re skipping significant content just to race through the main quest, which then ironically turns it into a linear game slapped on a massive landmass. So it becomes the worst of both worlds.

Skyrim without Faction, Daedric, and other non-trivial side-quests is not Skyrim. Go to any Skyrim forum and post something like “I only played the main quest”. The first reply you’ll get is “you played the game wrong, nobody plays Skyrim for the main quest”. Buying a game with the intention of skipping 90% significant content is stupid.

The solution according to you is to skip on possible great games just because you don't have the self control to play part of the game and not all of it.

The only person lacking self-control is you. You simply can’t restrain yourself when someone has a contrary opinion even though said opinion has absolutely no effect on you. Like a mad dog barking at a parked car down the street.

It means I'm not going to bother reinstalling the game and digging out an old save game to prove my point, because all that will likely achieve is you claiming I photoshopped the image or whatever. Either take my word for it or don't, I'm trying to actually engage in honest conversation. If we're simply going to deny what the other person says is true in reality there's literally no point in discussing anything.

I’ve provided evidence of my claims, namely the 61 polled people and the 156 hour completionist. You’ve failed to provide any evidence of “I did everything and maxed out my character in 80-100 hours”, so you need to retract your statement.

That proves nothing.

Sure it does. Keep looking at the picture until you understand it.

This is mind boggling crazy mental gymnastics. So you complain about the swath of land and the implications it has to traveling across it, but then say fast-travel is irrelevant. And you're told that reasonably 90% of the content takes place inside internal dungeons but they're also irrelevant. If you mentally chop out entire sections of the game then yes you're going to have a very muddled understanding of the game and of reality in general.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Remove all of those icons and just leave the five major cities on the same landmass. Now think about your irrelevant fast travel examples and how even those would fall over.

Therefore the landmass is directly tied to the amount of content. Again, having a dungeon underground is irrelevant, it’s the dungeon’s fast-travel marker on the surface landmass that’s the point.

It's funny because a lot of other players can cope with much less than 100 hours in skyrim and feel like they got the story they wanted and a decent length play time and so good value for money. But you're in that camp of meeting the exact same criteria but complain because there's more content than you can be bothered to do.

It really eats you up what I think, doesn’t it? Does my opinion of open world games give your life meaning? Maybe you should find a hobby instead.

I'm saying that your problem with the game is something internal to you and that's something if you acknowledge you can consider taking steps to correct or at least mitigate. Everyone has mental ticks like that, I've had similar in the past, I used to arrange my windows on my desktop so they were aligned to a grid, and decided to break that habit when I found myself actually being irritated when they weren't aligned, at that point it's just a burden on your mind.

Actually the only one with the internal problem is you. You have serious OCD akin to a religious zealot, and you simply can’t control yourself if someone doesn’t ascribe to your little world. Nobody cares about your sermons. Get over it and move on. Go and play some open world games or something.

It's the same reason people grind in MMOs, it's because it plays on that sense of OCD that people have to complete things, same reason that achievements exist and tend to be gamed by people, same with % completion bars, same when people spend 100's of pounds on steam trading cards to complete sets. And get levels...

I don’t play MMOs or care about achievements.

You have this game with all of its addons, it's like...it's OK you don't HAVE to play and complete everything. Pick a main story, do it, if you want to do more then do more, if you've had enough then put it down. There's mechanisms specifically built into the game to aid you doing this, quest markers, fast travel and whatever.

Or I can play semi-linear games that don’t require self-censorship of game content because they have reasonable content to begin with. I can also not care what you think because your statements are irrelevant. That way I get the best of both worlds.

 

[Red Storm]

I personally find I just don't have the time to dedicate to gaming like I did as a teenager. Because of this, I never really get to finish open world games anymore. I have started playing The Witcher 3 more times than I can count, and I always enjoy it, but because I don't have a set amount of time to consistently play every day or two, I end up forgetting what I was doing and ultimately stop playing, only to try it again a couple of months later.

Having said all that, I do love the idea of open world games, and I hope the trend continues and evolves into even more detailed game worlds, if not for me then for current gamers to enjoy.