• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

I'm sick of Open-World games.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

pathos

Senior member
Aug 12, 2009
461
0
0
I had a wonderful experience with the game and don't understand the hate it is receiving here.
Probably for the same reason op has gotten so much hate in this thread. Because, no one is allowed to have dissenting opinion. Anyone that does must eat babies or something.

That being said, I have quite a few game genre's I don't care to play. I don't feel the need to start a thread on them. Not sure what the logic is. Well, it did start a discussion of some sort, I suppose.
 

jimrawr

Senior member
Mar 4, 2003
888
1
81
Agreed OP. Its a large part of why I dont play many games anymore. These big open worlds bore me after an hour or two.
 

sxr7171

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2002
5,079
40
91
I have to agree to a degree. Devs are shoehorning this open world structure into games that don't benefit from it and actually it becomes a nuisance.

For example Batman games could just do well to let us just play the missions in order without flying for 10 minutes around the map between levels. While flying around there are so many useless distractions and side missions which are all boring. You know they put them in there to waste your time. To stretch out the real content.

The new Tomb Raider was a welcome departure from this open world concept. Finish a level and the next one is ready to play. Even though it has filler material you can ignore all of it and just play through the story.
 

sweenish

Diamond Member
May 21, 2013
3,656
60
91
Finish a level and the next one is ready to play. Even though it has filler material you can ignore all of it and just play through the story.
Same as just about ANY other sandbox game outside DA:I and a small minority of others. That argument doesn't support your stance at all.

EDIT: I put the wrong DA game at first.
 
Last edited:

sxr7171

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2002
5,079
40
91
Same as just about ANY other sandbox game outside DA:O and a small minority of others. That argument doesn't support your stance at all.
With Rise of the Tomb Raider especially the second half it was very tightly paced. It just kept moving. There were no distractions, no need to grind for anything, no need to level up and most importantly you weren't messing around a map for 10 minutes to start your next level. It was pretty close to playing say the BF4 campaign or even COD campaign.

With AC games for example you have to go and unlock a region and then within that region go to the location of the mission, meanwhile a bunch of things happen on your way there. Same thing with Far Cry. I'm not against open world games but I think it's been pushed to games that don't need it.

I would much prefer in Batman for example that after some early exploring to take a tour of the very nice world that you could just go to a screen and just start your next level. The AC games let you pick out a side mission from a menu but not the main levels. I think they don't allow it because everyone would see that there is only 12-15 hours of main level content.
 
Last edited:

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,838
279
126
One of the other things that sometimes bugs me in open world games is that even thought I know where I'm supposed to go I often can't find it. In Batman Arkham Knight for example some areas I am supposed to go investigate for a side-quest are down some alley that I simply cannot locate. I'm in the right area but everything starts to look a little too similar and I think I went in circles 3 times before I finally found the little alcove to walk into.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
I have to agree to a degree. Devs are shoehorning this open world structure into games that don't benefit from it and actually it becomes a nuisance.

For example Batman games could just do well to let us just play the missions in order without flying for 10 minutes around the map between levels. While flying around there are so many useless distractions and side missions which are all boring. You know they put them in there to waste your time. To stretch out the real content.

The new Tomb Raider was a welcome departure from this open world concept. Finish a level and the next one is ready to play. Even though it has filler material you can ignore all of it and just play through the story.
I've played a couple of the Batman games, and while they had side quests, they were completely optional, with plenty in the main story to keep you busy for quite some time. The problem is that some times we need to make a choice to ignore the side quests. Although I found doing the side quests great, as they gave me a chance to practice new skills. They also had a ton of challenges, which were also pretty fun, but optional.

I do get that the open world sandbox style is becoming overly used, but as gamers, we do have a lot of control over what we experience. We have to train ourselves to focus on the goal of having fun, and if that means ignoring side quests, do so. In fact I personally tend to ignore side quests on my first run through in all these sandbox games, and use the side quests as a way to add replay value.
 

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
15,425
747
126
I don't mind side quest, just give me a list if all quests, double click and action. It's the running between quests that seems waste of time.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY