getting tired of locked "open world" maps

playing far cry 4 trying to get into the northern area. i just want to unlock all the bell towers but you have to play through to nearly the end of the story before you can play half the game! why cant we just get the full map at the start of the game to
be explored at our leisure and desire to clear the fog of war...another stupid feature to limit player exploration, but it's manageable.

:)

 

?

[quote user="x24hrs2livex"]

My bad it's 46 years after the war ended

[/quote]

The Civil War, not the Revolution.

In any case, I'm not particularly interested in an open world game set in that time period, or any time period really. Open world games are getting a bit overplayed and are running the risk of getting tiresome...

 

Random Idea: Open World Halo

[quote user="MayhemsShadow"]

halo games have always been about the STORY. gamers have the option of macking out their own maps if they want to in halo world with custom maps. how much more open world can you get than that? geez.

[/quote]



I don't think you know what "open world" is.



Forge World is a large map with some creative freedom, sure. But it has small limits. You can't even go to the top of some cliffs without getting the "RETURN TO THE BATTLEFIELD" countdown. There's no free roaming throughout the campaign or multiplayer. It's
all very restricted.



Guys, again, this is completely hypothetical. I highly doubt they'd ever make an open world Halo game. That'd be like making Saints Row an FPS. It wouldn't make much sense for the franchise. I
just want to get an idea of reactions and ideas.

 

I know what you mean, but I didn't even go to that part of the map until after 3 weeks of playing it. You don't even need to go up there to have a ton of things to do with many hours of gameplay. I won't let that take away my near perfect opinion of this
game.

 

not sure which is worse, a map locked by invisible walls, like farcry 4, or one made by character ability restrictions that unlock through story progression. the batman arkham series is a perfect example, or metroid style games...or like past gta titles
that put the police on your tail as soon as you pass a barrier.

 

They do invisible walls? If anything invisible walls are the worse. That is a lazy method of keeping you out of certain areas.

 

Far Cry 4 doesn't have invisible walls. I played over 100 hours and never ran across one.

 

trying to get into the northern area before the story lets you forces you to turn back, so while it may not literally be an actual wall that you can slam into it creates the same effect. there are a couple areas around the south, temples and whatnot, that
have "no fly zones" that create an invisible bubble your buzzard can't penetrate.

 

--post contains spoilers--

So you're basically saying you'd like to be able to crash into Bowser's castle early, mess around in there, maybe pass by Princess Peach and wave at her in her cage while you collect some coins and shines...

... and then later when you've actually progressed through the story... you'll have reconnoitered the entire area and nothing about the game will surprise you ever? Cool, but utterly weaksauce concept dude. Video games have to follow certain formulae in
designs or they fail to work. Yeah, even "open world" games.

I just played AC: Rogue recently. Three collectibles were behind an inaccessible memory in the open world. But the location had a first civilisation temple in there. If I'd seen that early there would have been no reveal later in the game.

If Batman could access all areas all the time in the Arkham games he wouldn't be surprised to find Strange is being manipulated by Ra's in Arkham City, or that Black Mask was actually The Joker in Arkham Origins.

There could be better ways to keep players out of some areas in some games, I agree, invisible walls suck. But Arkham doesn't suffer from poor reasons. Batman simply doesn't have the equipment to access some areas early on. The player can't access memories
Shay doesn't have in AC: Rogue. That's logical and good design.

 

i don't understand how mario plays into this discussion...

i think this generation, and the end of last, has kinda proven that video games don't "have to follow certain formulae in designs or they fail to work". we've got games that are just blocks moving through puzzles, games with no goal other than "reach the
center of the galaxy", games with absolutely no combat...there are so many genre within genre within other genre that saying something has to be something is just holding a middle finger to the industry. but that's not what this thread is about so forget about
all that.

i haven't played rogue, but i'm sure they could've hidden whatever big surprise in some separate map or area that could only be reached by cutscene, and left those collectables in another area...

in arkham asylum you could literally visit joker at any point after you get into the back section of arkham. but that's not a very good example for me because asylum was awful for free roam exploration, areas constantly changing and new, and old, areas being
blocked and opened depending on the story...

...the arkham games in general are kinda strange to compare with other open world games, city and origins specifically. they are open world and all that, but they are so story focused and...self contained, it's almost like you're free roaming at the same
speed of the story. i have never even tried to get into places like sidonis or the gcpd before the story allowed me to...i'll give you this one.

but i don't see the reason they deny batman his equipment until he's trapped and needs whatever at that moment...HE'S BATMAN!!! one of his top qualities is that he is always prepared for every situation he comes across. it's metroid style gameplay and i
am not a fan of that logic.

speaking of logic...that might be the first time i've seen "logical" and "good design" being used to describe an assassins creed game, congrats!

 

The point is you're seeing an "open world" and expecting it to be free of all constraints. You're missing the part where it all has to make sense. The formula for success I mentioned - it spans all genres. By referencing Mario I'm highlighting the linear
progression of a video game with a story, objective, motivation, challenge... you don't reach Bowser's castle until the end of the game. Right?

Guess what? The same applies to FarCry 4 and that section of the island [Bowser's castle], and Assassin's Creed: Whatever and the old temple [Bowser's castle], and Batman: Arkham Whatever and so on and so on.

What you're basically asking to do is get to the end. You're asking to skip a level... because you, oddly, can't seem to see the levels in an open world game. If a game has no plot and no limits... then you can go anywhere, there is no logical story arc
or character progression to protect. Go play DayZ... or something...

... but if you want a compelling story, then expect there to be limits to where you can go. Just like there'd be a logic error in the plot of Star Wars if Skywalker could just turn up on the Death Star mid-way through, and suck on some of Vader's air reserves.
He got there without disabling the defenses, or joining the Rebel Alliance first, or y'know... learning some Jedi tricks from Yoda? No!

No... sorry, invisible walls of logic abound to keep Skywalker in a certain place with certain characters and at a certain point in his journey.

Also, collectibles and other such objectives are usually optional dude, and trophies and achievements that ask you to go after them are meta-games. Don't let the meta- crap spoil your experience of the ACTUAL game. =]

 

I don't see how allowing the player to explore the entire map equates to ruining your experience. TES games and Fallout games allow you to explore the entire map. Some buildings etc may be locked until you progress the story, but i can safely say no game
has ever been ruined for me because I happened to visit the far side of the map before the main quest takes me to the same area.

 

I just gave examples of how it could ruin an experience. If you're investigating an area tied to the plot with a character who is going to be surprised, in a cutscene, as part of the plot... later. How is that not ruined? He's already been in the area that
is the surprise/twist/whatever.

It's different by game, and visiting some areas early in some games won't matter. Some do the invisible walls better than others too.

Start a game of New Vegas and head directly for New Vegas from the start...

... if you don't get eaten by Cazadors taking that direct road you've somehow managed to get past the invisible wall. But stopping or discouraging exploration with powerful enemies, or with "inaccessible memory" warnings, or by having the character lack
the tools needed to progress... it's all invisible walls. =]

For the most part they're necessary. =P

 

I agree with Argo, you need those walls. Besides, what's the point in being able to explore the whole map if they are going to lock off buildings until later in the game?

I don't see any problem with a game locking a certain part out until later in the game. It's like the developer is saying "You want to see this?. Go explore the rest of our world first. We've saved this for last". I don't see the harm it that. In most games
it's necessary.

 

I wanted to explore the whole map like bootstrap so I could get all the upgrades, it's not about getting to the boss early or skipping anything, I just like to do all the side questing first.

Games like Just Cause 2 and GTA V had their maps completely open from the start, just a lot of the activities were locked. I personally don't think there's any harm in being able to explore the map from the start.

Oh and there is totally invisible walls in Far Cry 4, I was driving on one of the little 4 wheelers and I crashed into nothing! It wouldn't let me past, so I hopped off and continued on foot. This was just free roaming somewhere I had already unlocked.