The Henry's box of sand or Why do you like "open worlds"?

Gameplay
#21

It may be argued that the central narrative / quest is rather poor in Bethesda games (and even the Obsidian one; perhaps I would show mercy to Morrowind in it’s all glorious weirdness and the quality of the lore behind the main quest). But I get your point - the main quest is always the same. If it will be great it would actually be still always the same so there is perhaps no point in making it great anyway?

On the other hand as you have said there are usually mods that disable the main quest or vary it. And I must admit for me the absurdly poor quality of the Skyrim (and especially Oblivion) main quest was one of the two primary reasons why I never completed the game. The other reason? Playing those games becomes rather a tedious process and I don’t have the same amount of time nowadays as I had when Morrowind was new and I was goofing off the high school. It’s a pity.

I would descrbe my opinion in more detail tomorrow. Thank you all for your terrific input. I really appreciate it

1 Like
#22

Valid point. I can appreciate both. The eight hours of enjoyment I got out of Singularity? Worth the 20€ I spent on the game. But usually, when I want a well-crafted narrative, I read a book. Or watch a film. Though -imo- there are much more well-crafted narratives in books than in films.

But I do enjoy just running around in an open world at least as much, and for much longer :-D. Not boring to me at all, but engaging in a very different way. I love entertaining myself when I got the tools for it.

#23

I understand and respect that, honestly. But for myself I’d say that I rather want to be entertained than to entertain myself.

I hear the “books and movies deliver better narrative anyways” argument quite often but I don’t agree on that. It’s true that stories in video games are often lacking compared to those other media. But neither movies nor literature offer player engagement and player agency. That’s a different level of emotional engagement in stories. I don’t think you can’t compare that so easily, at least not for everybody. Like I’ve said before, people are different and they don’t only have diffferent tastes but also different ways of how they emotionally and mentally capture something like a video game. So it might be very well true that highly story-driven games are not very different to movies or books for yourself - but they are for other people like me. It’s very much about this emotional engagement. In a sandbox game in which I have to entertain myself I don’t have much emotional engagement - it’s more like a “toy” (not derogatorily meant but as a description). But this emotoinal engagement is key for me to having a good time with a video game, especially when I play something that is not purely meant as a “toy” game or sports game or something along these lines. :wink:

1 Like
#24

Now this is what I call an interesting discussion! So much that it made me start a post when I was already about to close it down for the day and finally go get some sleep. :slight_smile: And to keep sitting at it for another hour or so…

That theory about player involvement made me think a lot and I guess it might be about 3/5 emotinal and 2/5 cognitive for me concerning games.
I love when a game offers a variety of ways to reach a goal as well as a lot of space to explore, move in and interact with. Yet the story, a quest, or a goal, stuff to pursue, something that drives you through the game, probably has a higher importance. I never felt like trying Minecraft…

The more I think about it, if I was to list my favourite games, it would mean two different lists based on either my general impression/appreciation of those games (a damn tough one), or another one based on how many times I played through them over the years - that one is a bit easier, even though I mostly guess the numbers rather than being really sure about them.
The sure thing is that the playthrough list would be dominated by mostly story-driven and more linear games such as the Max Payne 1&2, Vietcong, Jedi Knight 2, KotOR, but also The Saboteur, or H&D 2.
Each with about half a dozen playthroughs, if not more in some cases.
But the very top spot would go to the first Mafia (I stopped counting at 14…).
(@RGS - Glad to meet a fellow H&D fan! If you really like the 2nd one, be sure to check out the very first H&D as well. It’s a bit dated, but very good anyway. And the full Deluxe edition went officially freeware.)

An actual favourites list would however feature more of open-world classics higher up the ladder. Like Baldur’s Gate 1&2, the Fallouts, Sacred… These are usually more vast and take more time to finish per a playthrough, so it’s mostly somewhere down below half a dozen times played. Plus the more recent series’ like the Witchers, DA, ME… a top ten list would be a tough thing to set up indeed. But I guess you get the idea… :wink:

3 Likes
#25

Yeah - I love H&D2 :smiley:

Was happy to see Vietcong in your lineup as well. I played so many hours of that game, primarily in coop on max difficulty.

Thing I love about H&D 2, and I can see it happening here again with KC: D, is the attention to the environments, realistic lighting and accurate period details. They were so well researched, each felt real because of this and the atmosphere was top notch. Also, as mentioned previously, the levels were open which aside from creating great game-play, enhanced the feeling of reality/believability. This attention to detail is far more than is put in by the CoD/Battlefield artists IMO (despite the giant budgets), where I get the feeling that a few Google searches and a visit to cgtextures.com will often suffice.

The same great work can be seen in Mafia 2’s environments - Again you get that real sense of place and era. You know a lot of research was done; the texture work, lighting and meshes are all well considered and consistent. To bring the story/sand-box debate back in, one of my favourite moments in Mafia 2 was after a mission (I forget which, which in itself is telling) I hid my stolen car at the back of a used car lot and walked home at night in the snow. For game-play purposes I didn’t need to really hide the car, or ‘walk,’ but strolling through the beautifully recreated city, feeling ‘in character’ and taking in the atmosphere was wonderful. This is the sort of thing I often do in games which many would class as ‘boring,’ but for me is a huge part of the experience. That’s not to say I don’t like the story based stuff too; the farm at night in the rain from the first Mafia was a great moment for e.g.

Love the attention that’s going into KC: D. Really hope it’ll hold that special atmosphere. Things are looking very good, fingers crossed ;).

1 Like
#26

Sandbox roguelikes are pretty high on my favorites list (along with hookers, blow, and the possibility of a Half-life 3) but when it comes to story driven RPGs, I still prefer open worlds. Honestly, I cannot think of an RPG I enjoyed that wasn’t a sandbox (Witcher was alright I guess). This is mostly due to my love of hoarding and distractions, something RPG sandboxes should always include. That’s not to say I don’t like other kinds of games (big RTS and FPS fan) but with RPGs, I like my worlds to have room to roam.

Scratch that. I loved Hitman (the good ones) and it’s missions had a sandbox approach. Even FPSs are better when missions have a more open level design. BF: BC2’s single player was way better than Black Ops (or BF3/4 for that matter). So I’d say, in general, single-player 3rd/1st person games are better in a sandbox (dungeon crawlers be damned). Occasionally there are good games that aren’t sandboxes (new Wolfenstein, anyone?) but there are few RPGs that are linear and good.

Maybe it’s because my RPG roots are in Dungeons and Dragons but I think that, in my own humble opinion, sandbox RPGs are superior to their more restrictive peers.

© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz