There's a lot to be excited about right now.

Just saying, open world can be done right. Dark Souls is also open world and man it was impossible for me to even get past the first bonfire in Catatombs when I started the game.
 
But Metro isn't Dark Souls ... I am not complaining about open world games. I like open world games. I think it is a great design. If done well. I also like chocolate. Because it is awesome. But that doesn't mean I want everything with chocolate now.

Mr Fish said:
Well, with how lethal the world of Metro is above-ground I think that they'd prevent players from just running around all over the map by slapping them to Narnia with monstrosities and grotesques.
Click to expand...
Sure, but I just don't want yet another game with grinding mechanics, which are so common in open world games these days. I just don't think this would work so well with Metro. One of Metros strong point was always it's tight narrative and pacing. Some of it might be lost if they make it an open world game, with lots of side quests and all those shenaninganz. Hey! Artyom! You have to save my mother from those fascists that have her imprisoned, she could give you the valuable information you're looking for - Oh yes! But just let me finish killing those 20 Mutants in that subway tunnel at the other end of the map first ... I will get a collimator for my Kalash when I do this quest!
Open world games, usually lack the urgency of doing things. Simply because it would not be very fun, if quests could fail, simply beacause you took to much time to finish them. It is a shift in design after all. And it has to be treated in different ways. Like I said, I would not mind a certain level of openess here and there. Something that is much closer to the Witcher 1 or 2, where you have large areas to explore, with a tight narrative and maybe things on the side. But, once you finished something, like an important story part, it's done and you move to the next chapter. This would also increase the replayability of the game. And it allows for a tighter story driven narrative. I just don't see something like Skyrims or even New Vegas open world design work with Metro, without giving up one of the points that I like about the game.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
But Metro isn't Dark Souls ... I am not complaining about open world games. I like open world games. I think it is a great design. If done well. I also like chocolate. Because it is awesome. But that doesn't mean I want everything with chocolate now.


Sure, but I just don't want yet another game with grinding mechanics, which are so common in open world games these days.
Click to expand...
Definitely agree. The word "open-world" has been spammed to the point that it's actually a negative for me now. The majority of them are repetitive Fallout 4 style grindfests.

The tipping point for me was when Bethesda decided to use procedural generation to create what seems like the majority of quests in Fallout 4, and then on top of that their actual "written" quests were basically the same "kill loot return" formula as those procedural quests.
 
IndignantHedgehog said:
I actually really liked the story in LL, and thought the ending(s) were very well done. Each to their own I guess :shrug:
Click to expand...
It's pointless and contradicts everything prior in LL. The world in Last Light is slowly resurrecting but in the end people are still kill each other in 'the very last war':facepalm:. I don't get it.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Sure, but I just don't want yet another game with grinding mechanics, which are so common in open world games these days. I just don't think this would work so well with Metro. One of Metros strong point was always it's tight narrative and pacing. Some of it might be lost if they make it an open world game, with lots of side quests and all those shenaninganz. Hey! Artyom! You have to save my mother from those fascists that have her imprisoned, she could give you the valuable information you're looking for - Oh yes! But just let me finish killing those 20 Mutants in that subway tunnel at the other end of the map first ... I will get a collimator for my Kalash when I do this quest!
Open world games, usually lack the urgency of doing things. Simply because it would not be very fun, if quests could fail, simply beacause you took to much time to finish them. It is a shift in design after all. And it has to be treated in different ways. Like I said, I would not mind a certain level of openess here and there. Something that is much closer to the Witcher 1 or 2, where you have large areas to explore, with a tight narrative and maybe things on the side. But, once you finished something, like an important story part, it's done and you move to the next chapter. This would also increase the replayability of the game. And it allows for a tighter story driven narrative. I just don't see something like Skyrims or even New Vegas open world design work with Metro, without giving up one of the points that I like about the game.
Click to expand...
Well, open world doesn't mean offline mmo, it can be done very well. Just think STALKER, it was structured and open world at the same time (an apart comparison since some of the 4A guys worked on STALKER, IIRC). And if they are going open world, I'd assume they wouldn't be using Artyom.

Although, honestly, I'd be happy for more metro either way as long as they keep the feel at atmosphere so good. If they do stay linear, I hope they go for more open levels and paths regardless.
 
Like I said, I am not, I reapeat, I am NOT(!), arguing against Open world games here. I am criticising the current idea, that everything has to become open world. Even a well done Open World game, can be one to many. What if Doom 4 was an open world game?
 
Eh, that could actually have worked with Doom if you could freely travel between places, just needing keys to access areas normally closed off, more powerful weapons for stronger adversaries or special equipment like radiation suits for areas with lots of radioactive waste material or chemical waste.

Not that I am trying to suggest that this should have been made, but it could have worked.
 
Except ... that I am ... not arguing about what ever ... if it can work or not :/. Guys. Plz. PLZ! I SAY!. Or I will have to spoon feed you nothing else but chocolate for the rest of your life!
 
Yeah I really don't like how things that shouldn't be open world get it forced upon them. There are games that truly benefit from changing into an open world but, well, I'd think Dennaton would've been off their rockers if they turned Hotline Miami into an open world game.

As to Metro, I'm apathetic. I played the first game but I never felt it was anything special so I haven't bothered with Last Light or the remasterings so it turning open world matters as much to as whether or not my neighbour straddles her dog when the lights go out.
 
Meh I get you, I think if you for example had said Half Life that people would have more difficulty saying "But that could be made into an open world".

The early first person shooters honestly weren't so story or scripted that they could only exist as a series of loose levels.

It is definitely the more story oriented games that really can not work as open world games, or open worlds that are 'to open' (just fart around to your hearts content, the deadly invasion/end of the world can wait)
 
The ones that like shootes with a clear and tight narrative. Like Metro. Open world games, even the ones that are very well done, tend to have a different structure. THe narrative and story might be different. Yeah, sure, shooting is shooting. First person is First person. And ice cream is ice cream. But it does matter to some if you give them now cocolate or strawberry ice cream.
 
Uh, what? Maybe for you mate ... But I think, it depends what you're looking for. Not all games, be it tactical top down, first person, third person etc. need a deep story. True. But that really has nothing to do with the gameplay they chose.
 
Not a whole lot of linear(ish) shooters that I bother playing solely for their gameplay but Serious Sam and Painkiller. At least they throw curveballs out of nowhere.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Uh, what? Maybe for you mate ... But I think, it depends what you're looking for. Not all games, be it tactical top down, first person, third person etc. need a deep story. True. But that really has nothing to do with the gameplay they chose.
Click to expand...
Shooters with stories tend to be too cinematic not interactive enough.
 
Not all of them, which comes down to how you design your game. Half Life 1 and 2, Deus Ex, FEAR and many more, are pretty awesome, with good story lines, and not to cinematic. Half Life, has almost zero cinematic qualities and plays entirely in first person. It really depends on what the game designer is doing and what they want to achieve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top