this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2023
94 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
126 readers
1 users here now
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My feelings exactly.
I played for 60 hours or so, and I enjoyed it a lot. But they put a fatal design flaw into the game by forcing to you be V, and by putting a ticking time bomb in your head. That means that if you play logically, you'll follow the storyline quests in order to fix the big issue rather than spending the time slowly exploring the world they made. It also means that once you beat it, there's no fun in going back and doing it again, because you have to follow the same railroad tracks and go through the same story beats again. It cheapens the experience greatly.
Like you, the world holds no interest for me now that I have found a satisfying ending for V. The least they could have done was put in a "story mode," and a separate "open mode" where you can build any character (who isn't V) and live any life you choose, free from the main quest railroad.
I'll never understand why game designers would make an open world, and then slap on a "YOU HAVE TO SAVE YOUR LIFE HURRY UP!!! railroad quest as the main story. It's a lazy and utterly stupid design choice.
Counter point: Fallout 4 has you searching for your kidnapped son. I'm a father, in actuality. So to me that's an imperative too, but it didn't stop me from building skyscrapers in the interim. There was no real death clock, so I really don't get your criticism there.
Shit, final fantasy 7 is one of the greatest games of all time and that asteroid will sit there in the sky as long as you let it. You're reaching hard. The more I think on it, nearly every open world game has some imperative story point and they'll happily wait for you to get there. You get tuberculosis in RDR2 and you will live forever as long as you avoid the last mission. This isn't uncommon at all.
Whether there's a mechanical clock or not is irrelevant, this is about roleplaying and immersion. The player should be able to play in a way that makes sense in-world without being punished for it.
A good open world game should have lower tension moments sprinkled along the main story so it gives the player time to chill and explore the world.
I named two outstanding open world games recognized as being in the top 5 games of all time that utilize the exact same plot mechanic, either the criticism applies to them (and you aren't) or its invalid criticism.
You bring up immersion... rdr2 is considered the most immersive game ever. Rightly so. You still have imperatives you can ignore.
They do and i am, lots of games have this problem, which doesn't make it less of a problem.
Though my point was mainly that the fact that "nothing actually happens if you wait" isn't the issue, but rather the fact that it doesn't make sense for your character not to always priorize the main quest.
I haven't played fo4 because they neutered the dialogue, but in 3 there are similar stakes with you trying to find your father, and although that game isn't perfect about this either, there are times where the lead gets colder, and others where it's hotter, this counts as a shift of tension like i mentioned.
But that doesn't change the fact that narrative and gameplay are almost always at odds with each other in open world games. Even if dialogue or game state changes a little there's no need for you to actually follow the story if you don't want. Compared to Majora's Mask where there's a very real time limit to push you towards progress in each cycle.
Yet that doesn't mean developers should just give up trying to reconcile the two. There are ways to fit them together in a more satisfying manner and it's a valid criticism to point out when they are not