Yes. Games are ruined forever. Sorry :(

Fair point, I was being a bit Hyperbolic on purpose. "Ruin" is probably too strong, but I think some view it that way.

Don't have an issue with open world games if they have substance. What i find is ruining games is the constant need to throw in crafting. Fells like a chore, and i don'r need a second job. One is enough.

It depends on whether the design supports it. For example, Arkham started off really linear and steadily grew to a gigantic open world that wasn't that exciting. Batman's moves don't compliment the world anymore. Breath of the Wild looks like it gives the players a lot of options, so I imagine that will be more engaging.

I don't know if they've "Ruined" it, but I know I'm sick to fucking death of it.

It all went downhill after Assassins Creed: Brotherhood

I voted for "No Way" but I think the key is how they are implemented and supported long term.

Open world games definitely can be done poorly and then they feel like they all run together and you're asking yourself "why did they make this open world? This would be so much better if it was linear."

On the flip side, if it is done well (Far Cry, Skyrim, now it seems Horizon) then absolutely, bring them on and bring more of them. They are fantastic and yes, they do help spur the exploration inside of us. I love that and think it helps a lot and also can help a longevity of the game.

I think it all just comes back to implementation.

I think some open world games would benefit more from a more concentrated hub world design of games like Deus Ex and VtM:B. Less icon vomit, more unique environments to explore, and more emphasis on interesting side quests rather than repeatable activities.

I mean, some do it a lot better than others and the market is also over saturated with them. Just pick and choose and spread them out. There are so much other stuff out there to play, it's just not a complaint I'm willing to hear out.

I like open world games a lot when they are done right. I like more dynamic, open-ended games.

Fatigue of a mechanic or structure doesn't mean those kinds of games can't still be awesome. It used to be that we heard the same thing about overly linear corridor crawls.

Games like Fallout, FarCry, Skyrim, MGS 5 all take the open world concept and give the players enjoyable experiences they couldn't get out of something linear like Call of Duty.

One thing I think would be cool is more games that don't play like Dark Souls but have a structure similar to Dark Souls. Freedom to explore but instead of being a chunk of terrain it's essentially a big structure you can explore in different ways. There's some flow to it but you have many ways to proceed through the environment.

I'm not sure Horizon is the game for me but Ghost Recon looks pretty damn awesome and it's because of the open nature of the game that I'm so excited.

I like having to figure out how to approach something rather than just being funnelled into a particular approach through level design.

I certainly enjoy well crafted, linear games but I tend to prefer more freedom to choose my tactics. In MGS, for example, I liked being able to hang out on the outskirts and using unsuppressed precision rifles and maneuvering over sneaking around to choke out dudes or running and gunning through town. But I could absolutely do those things. I could also call in a damn tank and blow a hole in the town's defences. Or slip through without leaving a mark. Obviously, sometimes the game requires a different approach and then it was fun to try something out of my comfort zone.

That's more interesting to me than deciding if I should use an SMG or a Semi Auto Rifle or a Shotgun in a CoD campaign.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "map vomit" it's the icons and being obligated to do things in a formulaic way that ruins open world games. It's why I prefer Bethesda's open world games to just about any other because they seem to understand that. Exploring is fun when you dont know what to expect, otherwise it isnt even exploring.

I have faith the next Zelda wont be reduced to map vomit. I'm not so sure about Horizon, but that game seems to do enough things right to make it less of an issue.

Yeah going by Jeff's review, this game was clearly ruined by its open world design.

I hate open world design. It's been proven time and time again that you can make immersive and fleshed out worlds/landscapes in smaller more well designed enviroments. Adding background flavor and immersing yourself in the world is the primary reason to make a huge landmass to being with, but if it can be done with less, then what's the freaking point of spending all those resources on a stupid chunk of land. I want engaging gameplay and interesting vistas dammit, not just more area to trudge through to the next copy and pasted side objective. Witcher 3 is just about the only game I've ever fully tolerated this design in, and even then I'm not sure it was even neccessary.

Speaking as someone who adores a good open world game, I think that a perceived majority of open world games taking cues from Ubisoft-style open world games is the problem, not open worlds in general. The issue with Ubisoft's open worlds (which, don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed my fair share of) is that the world is usually a means to an end, basically acting as a hub for checklists and missions. ...everything in the world exists solely as a component of that drive, and as such exploration (the major draw for open world games) is encouraged only as a pathway to ticking all the boxes.

Comparatively, in games like Skyrim and Grand Theft Auto, the world and its exploration is, by and large, the end, with all the other mechanics acting as the means to explore and enjoy the space in an emergent fashion; even the super linear missions in GTA are usually designed to take you all across the map and show you cool stuff. These games are stories of their worlds as much as, if not more than, they are stories of their protagonists. This is the difference between an "open world game" and an "open world sandbox game" (I vastly prefer the latter). Though there certainly are checklist elements in these sandboxes, the worlds are defined by far more than the activities that fill them: in this form of open world, there are tons of locations, details and interesting bits of errata that you would never encounter by following the telegraphed paths. As a result, they feel like places that exist outside of the scope of the player's experience, encourage interaction beyond aloof checklist-filling and are all the more compelling for it.

TL;DR, games have been taking the wrong lessons from the "gold standards" in open world gaming. It's the world that matters, not how much stuff you can do while you're in it.

I think people tend to mistake "open-world fatigue" with the more apt "Ubisoft fatigue".

It just depends on if it's done well. There are certainly open-world games that I like, but most of the time it's a death sentence for my enjoyment.

I love open world games, especially RPGs. But for the most part they've been a murder on story, with MGSV being the best example of a really focused, story-heavy experience turning into 50 hours of cool messing around. Horizon evidently has a cool story, and I'm curious how they did it. Maybe the open world is actually kind of linear, like Fallout New Vegas.

Ahh yes, map vomit and Ubisoft fatigue. Truly the bane of modern gaming. Damn those Assassin Creeds and FarCrys for ruining our video games. Where are the days where maps were an afterthought and mission markers were vague hints that allowed for all that joyous "exploration." I remember Morrowinds amazing journal that would mention a "cave to the East" and send me on a trek in said direction for hours on end until I finally found the specific cave in question.

Open world design or Ubisoft design is not ruining games. Bad game design is ruining games, and that is squarely on the developer.

Icons on maps give me OCD so freaking bad. I MUST DO ALL OF THE THINGS! I hate it and myself for being like that.

I wish open world was more about exploration then going to the next icon on the map. There was something incredibly fun about running into some random weird dude who gave you this incredibly awesome quest. I miss those days.

On Grand Theft Auto V

"Three days after release, the game had surpassed one billion dollars in sales, making it the fastest selling entertainment product in history."

No, open world games are a good thing, and will continue to be.

Icon barf is a plague on video games. Open world games have a ton of potential. It's just that everyone is making the same "follow the damn waypoint to the objective" kind of open world game. Where's the mystery, the exploration, the discovery when you see the full size of the game world as soon as you open the map for the first time and how many towers/outposts you'll have to clear to see it all. Open world games just need to get the fuck away from stupid checklist/handheldy game design. I want to be immersed in your world, not running from icon to icon going down a checklist.

i like open world games overall, they're good fun and add many hours of gameplay.

some open world games are tedious, but i think games like witcher 3 are clear examples that they can be exceptional masterpiece by design.

Some open world games seem like cash grabs, but it really depends on the dev. As much as I enjoy Far Cry and AC I wish that Ubi would get away from open world for a while and try some new things.

I'm on the fence.

If we get more games like Horizon, Rise of the Tomb Raider etc. and less 'icon barf' then yes. Structured and meaningful 'side' stuff is great. If its more like Far Cry 4 side stuff then pass

Recently, games like Mafia 3 would've benefited from a more linear/structured gameplay akin to Mafia 2 instead of its 'open' world that just felt empty

I get the need for a "hint" system in the games as sometimes it can be incredibly difficult to find your way around sometimes especially if pertinent information is missed (low audio, bad dialog, etc). Give me the general spot on a map I need to go to but don't tell me explicitly where I need to go for whatever active quest I have going. Make it an option to turn on or off too so that if I want to wander the countryside for hours on end without icons I can. The other solution is to have more detailed quests logs people can read as well. Some companies do such a piss poor job of this as well.

Thanks Obama !

As always, depends on the game and the developers.

We're still getting exceptionally well crafted non-open world games games like Inside, Doom and Dishonored 2.

And we're getting wonderful open world games like MGSV, Witcher 3, apparently Horizon.

The problem is that almost all open world games have linear objectives, because they tell cinematic stories. Imagine a modestly sized map with bosses or objectives that the player can take on in the order they wish. The map might start with four objectives that the player hunts down through hints in the environment. After one objective is taken care of, another two or three appear randomly. Commuting from one cutscene to the other is kind of boring. The beginning of Dark Souls was cool because you had so many options for where to go. Open worlds don't lend themselves to cinematic stories.

Oh, this is an easy one! Bettridge's Law of Headlines applies here, so no.

Now that we have that out of the way, I do think open world games are all following the same template, which isn't always a good thing. Mirror's Edge Catalyst is the most distilled and perfect example of a game that does not benefit in the slightest from standard open world game design. I am 100% certain Mirror's Edge in an open world can work and would be one of the most awesome games ever made. Unfortunately, it definitely doesn't work with the standard template of 'go here, now go here' design. I'm not sure what would work, I don't have the solution. But there must be a set of rules for an open world that work better for such a game. Something that hasn't been done before.

@pyrodactyl Sounds like you would love Fallout 4 with map and compass-disabler mods. Playing that game without fast travel, I can honestly tell you it is real cool to explore and very immersive. I do use a map myself, but it doesn't lessen the fun for me.

I hesistate to even call Ubisoft games open world. They're sandbox games like GTA, exploration isnt really a part of the game design, and that's fine for people who dont care about that sort of thing. It's all about just doing mission after mission and messing around in their world. Whereas open world games are more about atmosphere to me.

Problem is the lines are being blurred and sandbox games are getting bigger, and people who dont give a shit about immersion dont care and those that do find it kind of depressing.

EDIT: I suppose those terms are kind of interchangable, I guess I took them to meaning different things.

Still, I wish there were cleary defined terms for games that encourage exploration and those that are designed to be powered through.

@zevvion: Already played plenty of Fallout 4. Got bored with the mechanics and story before I could finish it. The problem in Bethesda games is kind of different from "Ubisoftified" open world games. They do a decent job of incorporating discovery in the gameplay loop. It's just that there's been 5 games using their template starting with Oblivion. It's time for a change.

Nope, Bad Design™ is ruining games. Open world environments are just a sign that more developers are willing to be ambitious about their title... but it takes requisite skill to match that ambition, and yeah, this has probably not been present in more than a few open world games.

I feel every game can and should be as open as possible, up to and including a free environment (aka, open world). Let me put this another way, every time I encounter a hallway shooting gallery or inexplicable invisible walls or the same, tiny set of rooms/locations to play a game I get seriously bummed.

This said I admit that this just may not be practical until technology and design conventions have reached that point. That doesn't mean every game should be an Ubisoft-style open world, which is the real culprit here (this coming from someone who legitimately loves Far Cry 2, 3, 4!). Everybody is aping the leader's style and quite frankly, it's souring the milk on the whole thing

I say yes. There have been really good and even great games that have all the open world stuff in them, but because so many developers are chasing the trend it has resulted in way too many games being worse off for having it.

And even the best, like The Witcher 3, could've used a bit more structure to them.

I think the worst thing they started doing is placing all the secrets on the map to start...we used to have to find that stuff! Having no reason to explore negates the fun that an open world game can create. Skyrim did it so well by telegraphing the silhouette of a point of interest when you were near it only, so exploring felt meaningful. playing connect the dots on an already populated map is no fun though

There is nothing wrong with a big area with a lot of things of interest in it. It's all about execution.

Someone might say they think there are too many open world games in general, and I can understand that.

Open Worlds are merely a tool. Like any tool it can be used for greatness or laziness like map vomit.

It's up to the creator to use it well.

Voted "Maybe" but leaning a little more towards "Nah, Son". It really does depend on the developer, and the maps can sometimes get real fucked with icons rather quickly which is always annoying (looking at you, Ubisoft). At least with Skyrim you have to either physically find it or have someone tell you about it. Same with Fallout if you ignore that one perk. But open worlds in general I tend to enjoy.

What do you mean? Oblivion wasn't the first of that type of game. Morrowind was very similar as was Daggerfall.

Echoing what others have already said, I think it's a combination of over-saturation of the genre along with so many games having the same structure: a modest-sized world with a few side activities that are repeated over and over. Additionally, open-world games over the past couple of years implementing a crafting or materials aspect really burnt me out on this genre.

My interest in gaming had been waning and I think it's directly related to so many games going this route without the open-world design quality of a Bethesda, Rockstar, or CDProject Red. I recently decided to give RE7 a chance because of the praise it's been given, that it's not trying to ape PT but is an actual solid RE game and it turned out to be the last new release since The Witcher 3 that I've really enjoyed.

I now find myself playing through RE4 (again), this time on the PS4 and am wanting to go back and play MGS 2-4, the re-release of Odin's Sphere, etc. This topic made me think about my renewed interest in gaming and I noticed that of all the games I'm enjoying and looking forward to, none are open-world.

I would say no since MSG5 is my favorite open world game.

Yes there isn't that much to do in it but i would prefer that over 50000 boring things to collect and exploring 500 dungeons that look the same.

Personally yes, I have really over the last few years lost a lot of interest in open world games, mostly because there are so many games that really don't use their open world or justify it one bit.

I thought MGS V was really the thing that made me sour on them as a whole. The game lost pretty much everything I loved about the previous games, and what we got was repetitive missions, barely any story and running around in a boring, empty world collecting things that really could just have been unlocked through more interesting ways than "scour every inch".

I cannot muster any interest in Horizon Zero Dawn after having seen how the game is structured. I just have no interest doing the same tasks over and over and having to run around collecting meaningless trinkets to progress in terms of equipment. Yeah you can skip side stuff, but then the game just becomes and empty world where you run from point A to B between missions and it would just be better off being a directed, tight, singleplayer experience.

@samanthak: Those Batman games are the worst at that. 'Here you go, 500 Riddler puzzles... on your map! Enjoy the icons of things you really would never want to do and is only here for the 0,5% of players everywhere'!

I love open world games. I've even enjoyed the last two Assassin's Creed games a great deal.

I suspect reviewers are sometimes down on them because there is an awful lot to get through before writing the review up, but as a player I love having a world to explore.

I find the same with film reviews. The amount of time I read reviewers moaning about a film being too long. As a customer I like getting a long experience for my money.

It may not be ruining games, but can't you admit it might be getting a little stale and formulaic at this point? Personally, I'm somewhere between maybe and no way. I will say I was less than enthused when I read Jeff's review of H:ZD and he mentions that you have a special vision mode where you tag enemies and have to keep them from sounding the alarm. Also, you climb a thing to reveal more of the map. I'll reserve final judgment until I actually play the game, but I think it's ok to expect better from developers.

No COD4 ruined games dumbed them down.

maybe open world that isn't subjected to as strongly or at all to icon barf (god i hate that term even if its apt) where things come naturally or are at least well integrated into the world. maybe stumbling on fetch quests rather than having an icon for them on a map would make them seem more novel? it would be at the sake of playability for me personally, though i'm sure 90% of people here would say they could handle it or would prefer it.

It depends on the game. Map filler for sure is a problem in some games.

I pin the start of it on Riot Act/Crackdown. That game was almost nothing but a mechanic and sandbox full of collectibles and a lot of people had a lot of fun with it and loved it. You don't have to do that twice for publishers to take note. Sandbox content can be made relatively cheaply and so if people like it they are for sure going to give you some. Or a lot. Or a heck of a lot.

Like virtually anything else, it's done more often than it is done well. And I hope we're on the down slope of map filler simply because there are relatively few well-crafted directed experiences right now. Surely everyone thinks we could use a little bit more of Tomb Raider-type games alongside our Hitman experiences, right?

In a word, no.

Open world > Linear

Most days of the week.

I still contend that The Witcher 3 has the single greatest open world I have ever seen in a game, and it is one of only a handful of games that compelled me to ignore my map for several hours and just explore for the sake of exploration.

If the world itself isn't as intricate or interesting as the Witcher, at least make your world fun and easy to get around in and don't break up the main gameplay loop too much. Even though their worlds were unremarkable, I still enjoyed dicking around in Shadow of Mordor & The Division just because it was fun to get around and I enjoyed the gameplay in those games.

Granted, I have a higher tolerance than most for grinding & monotonous tasks in games due to almost 12 years of playing WoW, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

@zevvion: That's the reason i never finished Arkham City :P

It's not my cup of tea, but I just see it as the next big "phase" for AAA development. It's not too different from everything being a third-person cover shooter, or everything being a first-person shooter, or everything being a mascot platformer, etc.

So, not ruining so much as just plaguing the industry for a moment. It, too, will pass, and then every AAA game will be a hero-based team shooter or something similar.