![]() ![]() I'm bringing this up because in a way it is a "linear" form of open world map design which I thought worked great as many open world games can suffer from being too open which can result in aimless and overwhelming/daunting navigation of objectives and the map. It would have made sense for RDR2's story, but I suppose they would have had to design the world a little differently. On the topic or RDR2, I personally thought it almost felt too open from the beginning of the game, I think the story and feeling of "rewarding gameplay" would have worked better if they took the same approach as RDR1 where the full map isn't accessible from the beginning, and you unlock regions as you progress through the story. I'd rather they stick to what made their games good, and continue to improve and innovate on their open world/ linear world designs and gameplay. I personally enjoy alternating open world and linear games (rather than having every game I play be open world). ![]() I personally think both RDR and TLoU do their respective genres so well, I wouldn't want them to steer away from what works so well for them. RDR1 and 2 are my favorite games of all time, so I can see where you're coming from. I think games with the level of quality storytelling that RDR and TLoU have could work in either linear or open worlds, and there are pros and cons to each as I said. but I think one of the most appealing things about their games is the linear design. I appreciate that they're experimenting with open world areas in games like TLOU2, Uncharted 4, etc. I hope Naughty Dog keeps on the linear path, while still evolving the linear genre. In a heavily story driven game like TLOU, I think an open world design would hinder the flow of the gameplay and flow of the story. I also love open world games but only when done well like in some of the games you've mentioned in this thread. ![]() Linear games are becoming more rare these days but the developers who embrace them usually end up bringing out the unique strengths in linear world design and it's a breath of fresh air when compared with the feel and flow of open world games. IMO even that area didn't feel quite right in a Naughty Dog game. They experimented with open areas in TLOU2 (Seattle area for example when Ellie and Dina first arrive). ![]() The environments would not be as detailed, filled out and interactive if it were open world. There are a lot of things that are affected directly or indirectly by a game being open world. in most cases you can't blend the 2 or try switching the world design and end up with a game that feels the same. Open world and linear worlds are very different and both bring their own pros & cons. The world design is the way it is because it's not open world. It can be fitting for Part 3 depending on the story. Not really fitting for Part 1, and definitely not fitting for Part 2. Open world basically takes away all urgency. Although I would be fine with either.Īgain, the issue is a narrative choice. Basically multiple large open/semi-open worlds you can enter/leave, instead of one massive open world. The zones don't need to be as massive, but can be highly detailed for example.Īnother game that did it similar was Dragon Age: Inquisition. I love exploring as Ellie and the gameplay is very fun, so I'd like to just wander around. This would allow a lot more replayability. What I would like is something similar, in that you have hub(s) like Jackson and you can go back and forth between locations (which maybe randomly respawning enemies/hunters?). They aren't nearly as large or detailed as RDR2. The areas themselves are large zones (but pretty barren tbh) and you can do the objective however you want. MGSV has a hub and you can decide which locations to drop to. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |