Yeah, well I guess it is all about the fact that people like options, even if they are not that well designed (meaning that there is not much incentive to do anything else than what you are supposed to in the open world). It also makes the game’s replayability somewhat better and the game “lives” a lot longer, especially if it is easy to mod.
On the other hand, I know some people who have spent literally months playing Ride and Extreme Ride modes in Mafia 1 from time to time and liked it very much. Heck, there are even people who play it to this day (!). I think it was mostly due to the cool physical model of cars and generally because it was a great game with a great story. So, if Mafia 2 had some of those cool cut features, it could have been a better game while making a little bit of a better use of its open world.
Haven’t played Watch_Dogs yet and probably won’t, because from what I read, some people were really angry at the PC version. And the story seems kinda lame, so it is probably not my kind of game.
The story of Watch_Dogs is among the best parts of the game…
And the PC version is pretty decent and runs quite well. Problem is that there are way too many whiners on the platform nowadays who don’t know anything about PC gaming and think that their new PC should run everything at the highest settings. And if they can’t play on ultra they derail every thread on the net complaining about the bad optimization and stupid stuff like that. Believe me, the game looks great and runs great on my mid-level system (Xeon E3-1230v3, 8GB RAM, Radeon HD 7870 OC@1200Mhz).
About Mafia - sure, some people still play the game but not because of its story but only because of its racing mechanics. The problem is that open world action games are purely target group games catered to as many people as possible without being REALLY good in anything. They should cater to story lovers, to racing lovers, to shooter lovers, to freeroam lovers, basically to everyone. Problem is that at the same time you’re always disappointed about something because the focus is almost inevitably too broad by the very nature of the game design. There isn’t a holistic, homogenic vibe anymore. In games like the recent Ubisoft games it’s almost two games tagged together without really fitting together - a linear story-driven game and an open world sandbox game. And tbh, I know many people that never finished the story in GTA or games like that for example. At the same time I never had much joy driving through the streets for hours without having a real goal. That’s the reason why I think these games are flawed by design - they lack a real vision, a clear concept, the passion to make a unique experience. Instead they want to cater to the greatest possible audience, the pure mainstream, putting sales above vision in every possible way…
lol ubisoft always has reputation for story, but their stories are always cliche and nonsensical. this guy becomes brutal criminal because his criminal ways got someone killed. now he’s on a mission of revenge. cue evil guy in glasses. cue token black guy, cue token rebel guy, cue token hacker girl.
I heard the opposite. When talking about the story, I watched some gameplays and it seems pretty… meh. Nothing to write home about. The problem with PC versions these days is that the games are developed mostly for consoles and later ported without a lot of effort just to raise sales (which is quite ironic, as 10 years ago, the situation was quite the opposite). And take the examples of big games like GTA 5, where developers didn’t even bother with a PC version for a long time. I am not talking about good looks as much as the game mechanics, it just always shows that it is a port from console, which is a turnoff. It is nice to see a game like KCD developed with PC in mind.
Well, you would be surprised how many people still replay Mafia’s main story (recently including myself). It was a combination of a lot of factors, including that it is less arcadey than GTA, with shootouts being a tad more realistic and fun. And the story was a huge part of why it gained such a fanbase and why a lot of people stuck to playing Mafia. Regarding open world games, I have to disagree, because a lot of people just like to have options and don’t need one aspect of the game perfect. See the success of GTA, which just gave lots and lots of options, while it was mediocre in a lot of aspects (yeah, the story was not every interesting). I side with you in that I like games with clear designs in mind and a strong story more, but obviously many people just like a lot of options. So basically an open world game like this can be a design by itself, it is just different than games that focus on a few elements. Or (even though it is kinda different) see the success of Minecraft, which is the perfect example of a game, where you don’t have any real goals. Just options and building.
Come on, it kinda fits, those are similar games to those we are talking about. And it is all in an offtopic thread.
I really liked The Saboteur. Even the story was somewhat decent, but the ending was not very good. But that was because of EA probably - they pushed Pandemic studios to release the game soon and after that they had to close, word is that the ending was originally planned to be much more epic. Really enjoyed their work with colors in different areas of Paris though.
It’s good that you brought up Minecraft because that’s a prime example how to make a sandbox game with a real vision and concept. Mincraft is created as a pure sandbox experience in the literal sense of the word. It doesn’t pretend to offer a serious world or story. It’s “just a toy” (which isn’t bad).
GTA is maybe a bit a special case because of its satirical nature. The open world is pretty much there to create mayhem which can be quite fun, no question. The point is that the story and the whole atmosphere of the game supports that concept. It’s a game about over-the-top gangsters who don’t give a shit about killing people and making all kind of crazy shit. That’s what GTA is all about.
Watch_Dogs (and AC IV for example) is entirely different. It’s very basic problem is that it cannot decide whether it will be serious and realisitic or just fun. The story is about serious stuff which isn’t supported in any way by its open world approach or by its side acitivities. On the opposite, they undermine the whole atmosphere of the game which leads to a game without any real identity imo. Are you a vigilante, a bad guy, a guy who just wants to save his family, a murderer, a saint? You are everything, depending on the side mission you do at the moment. Killing cops with guns is bad but causing serious traffic accidents is no problem? Watch_Dogs’s problem is that all the various side activities, the open world and the story just don’t fit together. They appear like completely seperate games, mixed together to maximize sales without supporting each other. In fact, in this case the whole game is worse than its parts which is quite sad…
My general problem with open world approaches in action games is that they only seem to used as some kind of pretty wallpaper. Of course it’s nice to drive around for a few minutes or even hours and look at all the fancy graphics. But if you’re not a racing game fan (and even then there are probably better games for that purpose) it gets boring very soon. Nevertheless, open world game force you drive or run through it on a constant basis. Games like Watch_Dogs, Mafia, GTA or even Skyrim are at least 50% about running, riding or driving around for no apparent reason, just to reach a certain point on a map. Skyrim - as an RPG - at least probably offer interesting things on the way, like new quests, dialogues, new events and stuff (at least if you travel there for the first time). That doesn’t happen in a game like Watch_Dogs. Open world is just a lifeless facade there without any actual meaning. You can’t talk to people, you can’t enter buildings, you literally can’t do anything than the very limited array of possiblities a game like that offers: running, driving and shooting. You talked about “having options”. Being restricted to these three gameplay elements doesn’t seem like a prime example of a game that gives me as a player a lot of options. In terms of options a game like Skyrim is light years ahead of Watch_Dogs. Open world action games try to fill the void of their lifeless gaming worlds with side activities. Problem is that in most cases there are not really good (often much better in specialized games about the very topic) and often doesn’t fit to the overall style or atmosphere of a game. In Watch_Dogs and AC IV for example side activities are a moral and narrative conflict with the basic story and foundation of the whole game or franchise.
Imo there are only two good design approaches for an open world game. The first one is to create a full sandbox experience without any story or “serious” game design. Minecraft is a prime example for that. (GTA in big parts as well although it offers a story which is not very serious and “in tone” with the sandbox approach of the game.) The second one is much, much more difficult because it requires a really living world. It’s the dream of the RPG that offers “a world simulator in a specific setting”, a living and breathing world with really gives you a lot of options instead of being used as a fancy facade for gametime enlargement. Games like the TES games tried to follow that route (without being really successful in many parts) and apparently KCD (or Witcher 3) wants to try it as well. We’ll see how that turns out.
[quote=“Ash, post:87, topic:9924”]
Come on, it kinda fits, those are similar games to those we are talking about. And it is all in an offtopic thread.[/quote]
The saboteur may be similar but Alpha Protocol? It’s neither an action game nor open world. It’s a pretty linear RPG. I really like Alpha Protocol but it just makes no sense to talk about the game here in the context of the discussion, sorry…
Personally, I think The Saboteur is boring as hell. Even at release it combined outdated tech with a dull story and pointless and boring open world driving. The innovative color palette was kind of fresh but couldn’t overshadow the game’s weaknesses for me…
Linear in the way of being not an open world game. It’s not linear in terms of story progression. But there is no open world to explore like in the other games we talked about here.
And I’ve played Alpha Protocol more than once. It’s one of my favorite RPG. So stop talking shit and stop trying to attack me personally. You could have just explained why you mentioned the game here in the discussion, you know. But you seem to prefer to be rude for no apparent reason. And your one liners don’t really add anything to the discussion imo anyway.
Nobody else has need to question me “why i posted it here”, just you, you the one who is attacking me in multiple threads like a creep and now saying i’m the one talking ****. Right. Just chill out and please stop being such asshole. We don’t have to react on each other, keep it in mind.
These were some nice closing words. I would say we’ll stop any insulting, name calling and unfriendliness from now on and keep on focusing on creating an epic game. You know we need your help, but fighting is rather unproductive. Furthermore don’t forget our forum rules! We monitor and read every thread and don’t want to ban anybody. So please stop your argument and drink a nice cup of mead together! Cheers!
Yeah, I asked you why you posted it here. What’s wrong with the question? It’s just a question because I personally didn’t understand the connection to the discussion like I stated it in my post. What’s the problem with giving a constructive answer explaining why you think that Alpha Protocol for example is an example of whatever significance in this discussion? It wasn’t my intention to attack you for anything here.
Stop attacking other posters, @Dekssan. Nobody likes it. I thought we were all here because we love the game being worked on. There’s no need to insult over preferences when it comes to different ones. We all have varying tastes.
I think you guys are overreacting. I didn’t see Dekssan insulting anyone, so I don’t really understand why call out his name. Maybe he can be a bit brash while stating his opinion, but I believe everyone here is mature enough to brush it off, there is no need to take it to heart. A warning is helpful, but to single someone out might make him avoid giving his opinion in the future, which is not nice at all.
There’s no reason for anybody to call anyone else a fanboy or an asshole here. That’s the point. It’s rude and should stop. And warnings have been made before but the condescending attitudes often carry on. Sometimes I have to watch it myself, but it shows up a lot when someone is new and says something that’s admittedly a little dumb or hasn’t involved much research. Others are very quick to jump on them and I think that creates an unwelcoming atmosphere. It might be a little different when somebody comes in obnoxiously demanding one thing or another, though.
I participate in numerous forums for games I love (tabletop Star Wars, Elder Scrolls, and KCD of course). The community for this game is 99% awesome. Knowledgeable people share their information without being condescending or insulting. Unlike the other forums I post on, this community has a 1% that is downright nasty. Everyone knows the two people that they dread seeing in fear they will attack your post. It’s a shame because I think it can scare people who might have thoughtful information to share from posting.
If anyone feels the need to attack a poster ad hominem I would suggest stopping for 10 seconds, cool down, and then think about what you’re going to say. Make the 1% disappear so this community can stay awesome.
