The "Open World" Lie And Its Implications For Future Gaming

a reply to: darkbake

YES!!!

If it came out on PSVR, I would throw my XBox 1 against the wall and head to EB Games to buy it, while my wife cleans up the mess, and my son scream cries because I choose to smash my XB1 rather than let him have it.
And I would stream it live so every single one of you can watch.

Man...sorry, I got a little fired up there thinking about it.

Real life isn't even an open world game. I wouldn't expect video games to be any different. There'll always be the unattainable.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You could have just titled it "ramblings of a pedantic Englishman".

I'm not so sure "world" is at all connected to size. Maybe "realm" would be a more preferable term for you?

I greatly enjoy "open world" games, but I've actually never thought about it in terms of size. We are simply experiencing that game world in either an "open," or on-rails scripted story. Frankly, I enjoy both and am glad to see them both continue to be represented in the market. But, I consider myself to be in that world regardless. They are simply different than the one I currently inhabit, and because of that, the rules and standards are not the same. Much the same as I don't apply the logic of "dragons don't exist" to a fantasy story, or "we can't yet travel the stars" to a scifi journey.. the world in which those stories happen may or may not have the same sensibilities as "real" life.

Really, I'd even go so far as to say that thinking otherwise may end up limiting what can really be achieved in this medium. Arguably, one could make a single room an open world experience of vast proportions with the correct, clever mechanics.

For me, Open World usually just means "a whole lot of space to waste time getting from point A to point B" because most of the games that say Open World usually don't take the time to use that space very well.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Oxford disagrees with you...
en.oxforddictionaries.com...

2. A particular region or group of countries.

It is grammatically accurate for a game to identify it's content as a "world" and when the exploration of that content is not limited to linear progression, it is accurate to call it "open world."

It's just semantics. The term 'open world' doesn't really mean planet = world, but that the world in a videogame is open for exploration, be it a large city or whatever.

Hey Truebrit and all you good peoples!

check out TitanIm!

I copy/pasted this from their page at titanim.net...

WHAT IS TitanIM?
A global sandbox. An open world. A complete ecosphere in which to create, to experiment - to experience.
There are no limits in TitanIM, geographically or conceptually.
TitanIM is a simulation software platform offering a genuinely new capability. Within minutes of picking up TitanIM for the first time, a user can leverage a whole world representation of Earth and create a new scenario, modify the environment, or participate as a virtual entity - at any point around the world.






I think this will be great if it is ever released to the public :-)
Graphics might not be up to snuff though, but trailer is from 2016.

Thanks for good OP!

a reply to: MisterMcKill

You make an interesting point...

But not necessarily a valid one. People have died playing objectively terrible, unrealistic, graphically childish games, like WoW and others of that sort, and its a matter of time before someone wipes themselves out at the controls of a character in Fortnite, too many energy drinks, too little useful hydration, too little sleep and too little real food. I suppose what I am getting at, is that people being stupid is not going to get worse or better, its a percentile thing that is going to be effected far more by things that have nothing to do with gaming, than it ever is by the quality and realism of games.

Furthermore, here is the thing about immersion. I can get immersed in a book, as if I am there in the story, with no help whatsoever from a graphics engine, or a screen resolution, or whether or not there is a bound key for ADS for example, hehe! I am not about to starve myself because I was reading. I might miss my stop on the bus, but other than that, nothing much is going to result from my reading a book and being engrossed. But the length of the book does not increase immersion. What controls immersion, the level to which one is immersed, is the richness of detail in the space you happen to be in at the time. Its not immersion I am looking for, explicitly, but the amount of game space there is to be immersed IN.

The people who would suffer negative results from that, would suffer negative results from ANY game of scale, and already do. I am not convinced that a larger game would result in more people suffering those negative results, and the fact is that those people who would suffer those results... they have problems that have nothing at all to do with computer games. The other thing is this:

You will have heard of Arma III, I am assuming, since its pretty widely known in gaming circles. Its a war simulator essentially, mods for which have spawned several other modes of play, and even entire new games, all based on the same core mechanisms. The core game however has provided injured former service persons, an outlet and an access to a community that they would otherwise be unable to connect with, which has helped them come to terms with their injuries, as well as reconnecting them to the world outside their heads, a VERY important, curative, positive experience for them. Other games provide those with disabilities the capacity to engage in community, something which a lack of mobility often denies them, especially in the case of those who are either bed bound, or isolated in order to protect a weakened immune system. There are positive elements to immersive gaming environments, and the negative outcomes experienced by those who, in fairness, should be under the protection of some kind of mental healthcare professional, cannot take away those positives, or be allowed to influence the structure, the progression, or the scale of gaming experiences in the future.

The overall impact of gaming on health for the individual, is the responsibility of only one party, and that is the player. If it is possible to maintain bodily and mental health while being a gamer, which it absolutely is (FrankieOnPc, for example, is ripped all to heck, despite being a gamer and a law professional, and while making his famous Day Z series was studying to qualify as a legal professional, and working as a paralegal in order to boost his experience and working knowledge of legal matters), then the arguments about the damage gaming causes to the bodily and mental health of players, has a great deal more to do with the player than it does the gaming they indulge in.

A larger playing space, with the depth and detail of GTA V, would not cause gamers to stop living their lives. It would merely mean that they had an actual world to explore in their downtime, or ideally, in the case of space life simulators, many, many richly detailed worlds, civilisations, cultures and all of the rest, to explore and learn about.

We would not be able, and I would not want to ignore reality even if I could. There will always be the requirement to eat, to drink, to meet people and commune in person with other human beings, to engage with nature, to feel the rain on ones cheeks, the frozen winds of winter slice the meat of ones face, the heat of the sun on ones skin. These things will remain necessary for the foreseeable future of the human race. On top of the basic biological need to leave the house and do things for ones physical health's sake, there is also the need for folk to go to work and earn the money required to feed themselves, clothe themselves, power their homes, fuel their motorcars, and indeed to be able to afford to purchase computer games in the first place! These things will be a part of the human experience regardless of what games we might be able to play in the future.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I think there’s around 10,000 operational bases currently.
Player owned factions can also have their own bases - like ours in Wolf 1301.
But as for sprawling cities - no there’s nothing like that.
There planets with sometimes 6 or 7 different bases on them that you can go to. Accept quests or bounty hunt for them.

a reply to: YouSir

If your on XBox 1 add my Gt Carignan

Im part of EXO- there’s over 100 of us active members. We have meetings with the owners of E.D about content addition, feed back.ect.
If you need help, go to our website fill out the app. Yes there’s an app. We don’t let griefers or idiots join lol.
We are cross platform as a division of GalCop.
Playing as part of a wing makes the game so much better my friend.
By the sounds of it, you know how difficult the game can be at times.

I am going to PK so many #ing ppl in Star Citizen.

I can't wait.

Like day one.

Even the noobs.

a reply to: TrueBrit

i played a mmorpg called Everquest for about 17 years. never heard it referred to as an "open world" game. is that just a new term for mmorpg? anyways, seems you are wrong on your complaint. this game has continents citys different languages/races. have played a few games like this but Everquest was the one i liked best.

a reply to: cognizant420

Tell me, does the action play out on a flat plane, or a spherical body?

What about the old game Star Wars Galaxies? It had everything an open-world game, by definition, should. It had whole planets to explore in their entirety, and it had different civilizations on different planets that all had their own motivations. While they were either on one side or the other of the Empire, the point is that it was a game that allowed the player to do absolutely ANYTHING they wanted. I don't know of any game since that has had the scope or successful implementation as SWG had in the open-world genre.

Just my thoughts though...

TheBorg :-)