Living game worlds vs Dead game worlds?

Sn1p3r187

Sn1p3r187

Carolinian Shaolin Monk
By living game worlds I mean something like Red Dead Redemption, most of the FF games, Far Cry 3, and Skyrim. Versus something like Fallout 1 and 3, Far Cry 2, Oblivion (I guess). Worlds that generally feel dead after some sort of apocalypse basically. The dead worlds rely more on immersion to keep you interested in the world, though it can be quite boring and repetitive at times (like Far Cry 2). Basically everything in dead worlds is hostile and out to kill ya. In a living world, NPC's interact, random events in the wild happen like traders fighting a gang or a bear happen, weather tends to come unpredictably, npc's roll on a schedule in towns or cities. So which do you prefer?
 
I don't mean to say Fallout's worlds are completely dead. Just not as living as say RDR. It brings on this feeling of loneliness like you're the only person left after some apocalypse.
 
I prefer a well-written, cohesive and logical world. Quality over quantity. Whether it is dead or alive is not of much importance - the very functionality of such a world is.


But if I were to pick - well, this is a post-apocalyptic forum, no? My vote goes there.
 
I don't think the world of scream is alive.
all I need to do there are mindless dungeon crawling and slautering dumb enemies.
other things are just accessary

I prefer living world and I think the world of Fallout 1 is not dead at all.
Because I spent more time on interacting with npcs or environments rather than stupid combat in all Fallout series except for failout 3.
and I really like M&B which is a true sandbox game unlike GTA, oblivion, scream or failout 3.

My definition of living and dead world
living: focused on interacting with NPCs or the world itself.
dead: focused on slaughtering enemies or delivering linear story
 
woo1108 said:
I don't think the world of scream is alive.
all I need to do there are mindless dungeon crawling and slautering dumb enemies.
other things are just accessary

I prefer living world and I think the world of Fallout 1 is not dead at all.
Because I spent more time on interacting with npcs or environments rather than stupid combat in all Fallout series except for failout 3.
and I really like M&B which is a true sandbox game unlike GTA, oblivion, scream or failout 3.

My definition of living and dead world
living: focused on interacting with NPCs or the world itself.
dead: focused on slaughtering enemies or delivering linear story
Click to expand...
Ahhhhhh, I see now. That makes more sense. Well I will say Far Cry 2 is exactly the bottom one. So question? Would this make the Final Fantasy games world dead? I mean you can't really get a different ending and skills and stats automatically level themselves.
 
Sure, almost every single JRPGs' worlds are taxidermied.
Nothing you can do, but killing enemies and moving characters to next story spot in most of JRPGs.

but I'm sure there is some exception.
Romancing saga can be the one.
 
Last edited:
woo1108 said:
Sure, almost every single JRPGs' worlds are taxidermied.
Nothing you can do, but killing enemies and moving characters to next story spot in most of JRPGs.

but I'm sure there is some exception.
Romancing saga can be the one.
Click to expand...
Shoot then. Technically it can't be much of an rpg if it doesn't allow choice.
 
The phrase "Breathing living world" is usually nothing more than a buzz word to put on the boxart that people eat up with no self awareness, just like with "immersion".

Truth is there is no such thing as a "living breathing world" in any game, until we are able to properly simulate reality all we have is a dioram with mindless NPCs repeating a routine. I value game and world design over it all, if there is nothing interesting to do in your world then I won't care if the flip flops flop or nor.
 
I think it would be more accurate to define the kinds of worlds the OP is talking about as dystopian or non-dystopian. "Living world" sounds too much like marketing-speak, and "dead world" sounds much too static, as though the setting is inert.

I guess I don't have a preference (a well-crafted setting being more important than any particular flavor), but at first glance I seem to remember most of the best games I've played being dystopian.
 
I don't really know which I prefer entirely, but I do play more games that take in "living" worlds than "dead" ones and feel more interested in living ones than dead too, so I guess I prefer living ones.



woo1108 said:
and I really like M&B which is a true sandbox game unlike GTA, oblivion, scream or failout 3.
Click to expand...

Since when is GTA not a sandbox game? Isn't Sandbox a term used to describe a game as being 'open world'. Like in an actual sandbox, you can play wherever you want. And besides, M&B is a Open-World RPG which is different from a Sandox game about causing crime.
 
Last edited:
Big No said:
woo1108 said:
and I really like M&B which is a true sandbox game unlike GTA, oblivion, scream or failout 3.
Click to expand...

Since when is GTA not a sandbox game? Isn't Sandbox a term used to describe a game as being 'open world'. Like in an actual sandbox, you can play wherever you want. And besides, M&B is a Open-World RPG which is different from a Sandox game about causing crime.
Click to expand...
Just because a game is open worlded, it can't be called a sand box.
Does causing crime when you are not on mission make any difference to world?
all the contents are prepared for make you play the game through linear plot.
It's not a sand box at all.
it's just extended version of linear shooter and driving games.
 
Walpknut said:
The phrase "Breathing living world" is usually nothing more than a buzz word to put on the boxart that people eat up with no self awareness, just like with "immersion".
Click to expand...
That's true, especially for any bethesdian game. Any critter placed on map stop breathing after you leave said map cell and most events is just hard-scripted.

Truth is there is no such thing as a "living breathing world" in any game, until we are able to properly simulate reality all we have is a dioram with mindless NPCs repeating a routine.
Click to expand...
I find a space simulation games, namely X2/X3 series, to be most living game worlds I've met so far. All those cruisers, merchant vessels, space stations and other shit are still working and following their behavior patterns. Military patrols, pirate raids, factory production, and business goes on in the galaxy, no matter which sector or star system your main vessel is exploring.
 
woo1108 said:
Just because a game is open worlded, it can't be called a sand box.
Does causing crime when you are not on mission make any difference to world?
all the contents are prepared for make you play the game through linear plot.
It's not a sand box at all.
it's just extended version of linear shooter and driving games.
Click to expand...

Well what genre would GTA be in if it's not Sandbox? This is the description of Sandbox gaming:

An open world is a type of video game level design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives. The term free roam is also used, as is sandbox and free-roaming. Generally open world games still enforce many restrictions in the game environment, either because of absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity.

Another description:

The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by their ability to play creatively, boundless of artificial structural constraints, and with there being "no right way" of playing the game.

What it sounds like from your post you're acting like GTA is open world. GTA is obviously not open world. Think of it this way, a sandbox in real life is obviously a sandbox, an enclosed space. Open world? The world outside your front door. Fallout is open world because the game design implies that there is more to the game world we're not seeing. Sandbox? It's all an enclosed space, GTA and other Sandbox games out there uses islands to keep the player in "the sandbox" so to speak.
 
Last edited:
I didn't compare GTA with RPGs.
I was thought of The sims.
is there any linear plot in Sims?
I don't think so.

Big No said:
The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by their ability to play creatively, boundless of artificial structural constraints, and with there being "no right way" of playing the game.
Click to expand...


It's hard to think playing GTA series requires creativity.
beacause you have to follow right way to beat the game.
isn't it?

GTA is fun not because it is creative game.
it is fun because driving and shooting are fun.
other things are just tools to help player enjoying driving and shooting
 
Last edited:
Sorry about this, but I rewrote my previous post because I wanted to rewrite it. If you could acknowledge the new one that'd be great.
 
Big No said:
What it sounds like from your post you're acting like GTA is open world. GTA is obviously not open world. Think of it this way, a sandbox in real life is obviously a sandbox, an enclosed space. Open world? The world outside your front door. Fallout is open world because the game design implies that there is more to the game world we're not seeing. Sandbox? It's all an enclosed space, GTA and other Sandbox games out there uses islands to keep the player in "the sandbox" so to speak.
Click to expand...
Sandbox is not contradict with open world.
openworld means you can move whereever you want in the game.

and sandbox is a name of genre that provides living world and tools to play it.
 
woo1108 said:
Sandbox is not contradict with open world.
openworld means you can move whereever you want in the game.

and sandbox is a name of genre that provides living world and tools to play it.
Click to expand...

I know, that what I said (or atleast I think so, your English makes it hard for me to understand). So yes, GTA is a Sandbox. Not an Open-World obviously but Sandbox.

I would also like to state that just because alot of the stuff in GTA is about driving or shooting, it doesn't mean it's uncreative. It's HOW you use those elements to bring about a creative gaming experience.
 
Last edited:
Big No said:
Well what genre would GTA be in if it's not Sandbox?
Click to expand...
Driving and shooting.


This is the description of Sandbox gaming:


The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by their ability to play creatively, boundless of artificial structural constraints, and with there being "no right way" of playing the game.
Click to expand...

What I want to say is, GTA is not a sand box at all but it's open worlded.
with this description, GTA can not be a sand box.
It has right way to beat missions.


What it sounds like from your post you're acting like GTA is open world. GTA is obviously not open world.
Click to expand...
Why? open world is not a name of genre.
it's just word to decribe the game allows you to move everywhere you want.
so GTA is open worlded game.

Think of it this way, a sandbox in real life is obviously a sandbox, an enclosed space.
Open world? The world outside your front door. Fallout is open world because the game
design implies that there is more to the game world we're not seeing.
Click to expand...
You are totally wrong with open world.
Fallout is a open worlded game because it allows player to move freely, not because of the design.

Even with your logic, GTA still can be a openworlded game because there are more cities than Liberty city or Los santos.
you can even go to Liberty city in San Andreas.

An open world is a type of video game level design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.
The term free roam is also used, as is sandbox and free-roaming. Generally open world games still enforce many restrictions in the game environment, either because of absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity.
Click to expand...

This description is totally Bullshit.
It just saying "oh, sand box is like failout 3, skyrim or GTA."
This can't be a description for real sandbox games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top