Open World - Growing Genre or Failed Experiment

[Berzee]

That's interesing, I want make a game without fighting and combat that is also not a puzzle game, platformer or sport/racing game and it's kinda hard to make something game-y enough and not exploration-only. Any suggestions?

I thought about your question, and asked myself another question, "Where and Who do I sometimes wish I could be?" then tried to filter that list down to things that didn't involve being some kind of skilled combatant in a far-removed adventurous setting. I was going to say that a game about being a wandering minstrel (strictly weaponless) might be good times. But then I realized that wandering minstrels don't actually have any reason to explore an open world, when they could just stick to the paths and play at the taverns.

Aside from explorers and bandit-hunters, what kind of character even *would* take advantage of a world without boundaries? This is a good question to ask. Once you can think of either a profession or a personal motivation that would make someone step off the beaten paths of the world but without leading them to violence, you may be able to think of some play mechanics that represent what that sort of person might do. A character that's not prone to melting away into the forests and hills (or alleys), probably doesn't need his world to be completely open. =)

Actually I only just realized that you never specified wanting your non-combat game to be Open World...but since that's the topic of the thread I'm just going to assume you meant that, and post this anyway. =P

[CodeineFiend]

The year was 2009 and I had only just discovered PC gaming, and with it, Oblivion and the modding scene. I had never experienced open world games prior to this. Ditto with mods. Together the two captured my attention, and I lost some 500+ hours to Oblivion, Fallout 3 and FONV. Not. Counting. Modding hours. I was awed by the scope of these games, the number of activities available to me.

Fast forward to 2012. Bored to tears with Skyrim. Granted that's after 150 total hours. But the last 50 of that were a slog to finish a Main Quest that was as hollow as it was forgettable, in the end. Made myself do it, hoping it would get better. It did not.

Growing Genre.
It sounds like you got 600 some hours of enjoyment from 4 games. You may be too bored to come back to them now, but it sounds like you had plenty of fun while you did play them. What is wrong with that? Repitition is boring, I agree with you. Is that what this thread is about?

edit: I am not defending skyrim or any of the other games at all, that is just how I see it.

[GameCat]

It would be open mini-world. :D Problem is that main character explores the world in sake of old simple curiousity, so it's rather hard to make gameplay based on repetitive action (like fighting in Elder Scrolls).
I was also thinking about making all NPC (only a few in whole game) that you can interact with and that are aware of your existence and actions and they will remember it.

Oh it made me think about one huge flaw about open-world games.
Informations. They spreads WAY too fast. Even sending a text message via cellphone is slower. I want fantasy worlds where you can find messengers running from city to city, spreading news etc. You don't want some informations to spread? Find a certain messenger and kill him or steal his letter or something. Or maybe you will REPLACE that letter with opposite information.
Of course more important informations will be well protected. Or maybe someone will send message via pigeon or other bird. :P
Rather simple stuff that can even be scripted and tied to certain quests, but hell, what a difference it makes.

[chopper]

That's interesing, I want make a game without fighting and combat that is also not a puzzle game, platformer or sport/racing game and it's kinda hard to make something game-y enough and not exploration-only. Any suggestions?

Miasmata. Check it out, it's outstanding.

The type of open world represented there - unpopulated, survival-focused - is the opposite to one stuffed full of activities and NPCs (which as stated, are bound get old and shallow eventually) which is possibly why it is so fresh. That's kind of a niche area though.

[fiddlesticks]

That's interesing, I want make a game without fighting and combat that is also not a puzzle game, platformer or sport/racing game and it's kinda hard to make something game-y enough and not exploration-only. Any suggestions?

It doesn't have anything to do with open-worlds, but I always liked the idea of an RPG that completely eschews combat in favour of other ways to interact with the world. You'd still have stats and skills, but instead of determing how good you are at slaying goblins they would be used for dialogue and exploration.

To make an example, how about a detective RPG that gives you various ways to solve a case? If you are a smooth-talker you can receive more information by questioning witnesses, whereas a perceptive build can figure out more from looking at the crime scene. The character might even come to completely different conclusions, accusing various people of committing the crime, depending on the stats you picked. Or a spy RPG wherein you actually play a spy, rather than an action hero who happens to fight global conspiracies while not looking at explosions.

[GameCat]

I tried play it, but it's not working well with my laptop. It's always running with integrated Intel chip (NVidia Optimus technology is sometimes frustrating), no matter what, so I have, hmm, 5 fps? :x

Shame, because I can easily run Far Cry 3 (at low settings) with 30-40fps and Miasmata concept is pretty good.

The character might even come to completely different conclusions, accusing various people of committing the crime, depending on the stats you picked.

It can easily turn to frustrating experience where you can find out (as a player) who commited the crime and your character not, because some of his stats are too low.

[Blackcompany]

Glad to see folks are still discussing this on and off. That's good.

I saw a couple of post with intriguing ideas. For instance, what sorts of characters would explore an open world (outside of the usual suspect?) Someone who needs to survive. Like Miasmata. Or Lara in the new tomb raider. Someone desperate for supplies, sustenance, some way to live. Survival is one powerful method of compulsion.

A for profit explorer/adventurer. Think Indiana Jones, but with less fighting and more exploring. Discovering new artifacts could garner better rewards, to allow for even more adventuring goodness, deeper into ancient ruins or forbidden wilds. Profiting from exploration might compel some to explore more.

Someone looking to escape might explore an open world in order to seek a way through a portal or off of an island. I know Myst tried - or said it did - but that's not what I mean here. Dear god no. But someone looking for a way out of the open world might feel compelled to explore that world.

A detective/invetigator on the trail of a major criminal might explore a semi-open world like that of Deus Ex: HR. Perhaps they have to work up to their personal Moriarty first, by tracking down minor culprits and gathering information, exploring crime scenes when crimes happen, and by walking beats and/or protecting posts now and then. An investigator might have a powerful motive for exploring, as in the investigative side missions in DXHR.

All of these are reasons for exploration in a game. In fact they worked in the very game I reference, DXHR. And they work far better than "go here, kill this, repeat." Far. Better. Of course they require more hands on design time and less time spent checking boxes for a "radiant" system. Not that Radiant is entirely useless; it has its uses and its place. But it was overdone in Skyrim. Almost like they took the old fetch quests from the rushed portion of Oblivion and said, "How can we streamline the designing of even more generic content." From a bottom dollar standpoint Radiant is an amazing success. Too bad its dull as hell after a while. There are far more compelling reasons to explore than fetch questing; I just wish devs would cotton on to this fact.

And as for the success/failure of open world games, I have given some thought to that as well. Recently I tried to play Far Cry 3. Which is a good time. A Solid open world adventure. Except...it shouldn't be. The narrative was intended to be compelling, its basis urgent. Except...I am too busy hang gliding, hunting and skinning - not to mention bounty hunting and treasure seeking - to care. And given the context of the narrative that just...cheapens the entire experience for me.

I really wish Far Cry 3 had simply been about a botched operation to liberate the island, where you were forced to improvise (as in FC2) but without the malaria this time. As it is, this is one game that NEEDED more linearity and less freedom, and has gone the opposite route, to the great detriment of any urgency its narrative might have once possessed.

And therein lies the great failure - in my mind - of open world games to date. The Narrative. Skyrim, Oblivion, FC2 and FC3. All were supposed to have narratives driven by urgency. Some great need for you to attend to. But when you go wander off, nothing comes of it. Nothing happens without your making it happen, and it cheapens the experience of the narrative. Which cheapens the overall experience of the game. Perhaps what I should have said, then, was: Are Narrative-Driven open world games a growing genre, or a complete failure?

[Berzee]

Those are some good motivations -- and thinking of it, I expect Sir, You Are Being Hunted to make a pretty good use of the "open world that you really just want to escape from" idea. We'll see =)