On last week's mailbox we had Steve Wright, who parroted Tim Schafer's sentiments by saying publishers are scared of new IPs and that he's bored of sequels.
This week we've got Jon Gates, who's just a says he feels just a little bit overwhelmed by open-world games.
To have your letter featured on CVG's Mailbox, drop us a line.
Over to Jon.
PSM3 says: Many found Arkham City overwhelming - fair point - but you can ignore the main quests in Skyrim and the dragons won't turn up. Good point: are big worlds really better than small, highly-detailed ones?
CVG says: We agree, open-world games can be very overwhelming and in fact we'll admit to feeling a bit lost for the first hour or two of Arkham City, but there's a trick to playing them.
It's important to compartmentalise your tasks and also prioritise what you want to do. For example, in Skyrim we focused on each of the different guilds before powering through the main quest. In Batman we opted to complete the main story before heading back and mopping up the Riddler's stuff. By doing that we find open-world games to be far more manageable.
You're right though, games don't have to be huge to be enjoyable, but it's nice to have the option.
Comments
34 comments so far...
cmr333 on 18 Feb '12 said:
This guy has no idea what his talking about, Imagine Grand Theft Auto just level based and has no free roaming at all, finish one level then next one starts.
Also the reason why Mafia 2 failed.
MagicBoughie24 on 18 Feb '12 said:
Arkham City was perfect, if it overwhelms you then maybe its not the type of game you should be playing. The point of RPG and sandbox games is too have a large open world to explore and to give you more control, its not the genres fault if you cant get on with it.
hi0marc on 18 Feb '12 said:
Games like Skyrim should be open world, there is no question about that. A while back there was a brief period of games being open world for the sake of it, almost on the back of GTA success. This led to games like Operation Flashpoint making awful attempts at open world gameplay, and they should stick to not necessarily corridor based gameplay, but mass effect style oepn but linear levels, i think thats what the writer was talking about at least
djreplay on 18 Feb '12 said:
I think Arkham City is too big, travelling around it is a nightmare with rent a goons all over the place and the grappling system just isn't good enough to travel anywhere fast. A vastly over-rated game imo.
TallPaul1878 on 18 Feb '12 said:
The guy has a point. There is a tendancy to use open world as a buzz word to sell games. Say for example Burnout. It was a great game, do a race at a time, then they went "open world" and for me it was awful. People don't play racing games to cruise around a big city. The best racing games are straight to the point. Pick your race and off you go.
Imagine if they started making open world sports games. You had to make your way to the stadium to play a game, it's up to you as and when you do it. Wait I'll stop there before anybody gets any ideas. Anyway it wouldn't work.
Open worlds in adventurew games but not for the sake of it please.
DAEDALUS79 on 18 Feb '12 said:
The guy has a point and those criticizing it obviously have reading difficulties. As a gamer my gaming time has dropped significantly since my teens, I probably play 10 hours a week tops (although Skyrim has drastically raised that recently). Because of this, I find open world games daunting, a good example being arkham city which Ive hardly touched because I simply cant bare to get into it...theres too much to do and too little direction. Obviously some games like GTA and Elder Scrolls benefit from open worlds, but others are detracted from by having a massive world to navigate rather than just cut scenes to fill the story.
damoxuk on 18 Feb '12 said:
Why does it have to be either that or this?
I personally like a mix of types.
I love open worlds like Red Dead, skyrim, batman.
But I also love more linear story based or popcorn games like Uncharted 3, Cod etc
But there's only one way to find out which is best. FIGHT..
El Mag on 18 Feb '12 said:
I'm fed up of games not having decent manuals anymore. They used to be my huge dump time aid, now I just have to sit there bored.
It's just not the same trying to read a newspaper or a magazine, they don't balance on your legs right and the newspaper leaves print on your thighs.
And I'm fed up they don't sell Pot Rice anymore, they were much better than Pot Noodles.
lordirongut on 18 Feb '12 said:
^This. On so many levels, this.
On topic, I agree. Skyrim's enormity is undoubtedly impressive but a lot of it is copied and pasted, and walking around it can be unnecessarily time-consuming. There is something to be said for the small and detailed approach.
alan666 on 18 Feb '12 said:
hmmm a lot depends on how much content there is in open world games, Red Dead Redemption for example was a excellent game & it had a huge area for openworld play, but the amount of interaction was very limited & when there was some it was all to similar, the GTA games are also the same but R* do use more of the area in the DLC they release.
freds1 on 18 Feb '12 said:
Whine whine whine.
Don't like huge open game worlds, then don't friggin make/play them. Do what you feel comfy with.
I agree though, personally I like a mix of both, when I want open game worlds I'll play them. When I fancy having a linear blast through corridors I'll play them. So what. I don't find Skyrim overwhelming at all, and there isn't even DLC out yet, jebus. I don't feel like I've failed because I'm only half-way through a week later. It's just a different type of game, take a break and come back later.
KesMonkey on 18 Feb '12 said:
Don't buy open world games then. Those of us that enjoy them will continue to do so.
You've come to this conclusion after conducting an extensive scientific survey of the gaming community at large?
Please don't assume that everyone's tastes are the same as yours.
That is entirely subjective. Please don't assume that everyone's tastes are the same as yours.
Sure, that doesn't sound appealing, but I doubt that anyone, anywhere, ever, seriously pitched a game idea like this. In the unlikely event that one is published in the future, you won't be obliged to buy it, therefore, this isn't even approaching an issue.
What an odd thing to say. He simply said that he doesn't like open world games. The only way "This guy has no idea what his (sic) talking about" could make sense is if he stated something that was incorrect.
The reason Mafia 2 failed is because people thought it was going to be something that it wasn't.
You don't like Arkham City, fair enough. But, to claim something is over-rated is just another way of saying that you're in the minority of people who don't like something that's popular.
Are you always so insulting towards those whose opinions you don't share?
toaplan on 18 Feb '12 said:
Gamers nowadays can sometimes be a bit impatient and require a lot of hand-holding
Game design today is much more professional than in the past. In the rather crude open-world games of the past, having to traverse vast distances of almost completely empty spaces and not knowing where you should be heading to, was routine. I'm thinking of for example some of the early open-world RPGs (such as Faery Tale) or the various simulator-type games (Carrier Command, Midwinter and other oldies that many have never heard of 
).
In fact, I think one of the reasons the whole "simulator" genre has faded is that gamers have become so used to all the fast-paced action-packed and slickly designed games. Now, I've always been a fan of those, but I also think that there's definitely a place for slower-paced and exploratory open world-gaming. Arkham City wasn't too large - that's life in a big city! The vast geography of GTA: San Andreas just made it more epic. And what I'm hoping for is... that someone would release the racing game from its tight shackles and make a true open world, realistic road racing game. One where you are just given a fast car, a destination to reach, a map, weather and traffic reports... and then it would be all up to you.
Sleepaphobic on 18 Feb '12 said:
Lately it seems open world games are being made just for the sake of having the box label.
TheLastDodo on 18 Feb '12 said:
Are you fed up of open world games? If the answer is yes then the solution is very simple, play something else.
When you're fed up of playing something else, play an open world game.
If you get fed up of open world games again, try something different.
Fed up of playing something different? Try something more familiar, like an open world game.
If you get bored of playing open world games again, don't bother telling a magazine about it, if you do, I will find you and I will eat ya.
liveswired on 18 Feb '12 said:
There's something called choice - this is so bloody ridiculous I'm surprised psm3 even took it on. I agree it doesn't fit every title - BUT THE TWO TITLES HE COMPLAINS ABOUT WOULD BE MUCH LESSER GAMES WITHOUT IT.
Do you hear Hollywood moaning there are too many blockbusters?
STE MO on 18 Feb '12 said:
Batman AA and Hitman aren't openworld games. Think he might be getting confused between openworld and sandbox games.
bagofbones on 19 Feb '12 said:
Definitely a point here. I loved Arkham Asylum due it's concentrated story and perfect pacing. Arkham City had me flying around doing pretty much nothing, while feeling like I should be doing side quests but that they weren't really relevant to the actual story in the game. Sometimes; an "open-world" design just bogs down a game.
widgy82 on 19 Feb '12 said:
more importantly what about the pure lameness of the main quest in these games!? arkham citys main quest is less than 50% of the game! the rest is just s**tty find and collect bulls**t missions i cant b arsed doin once the main story is done! i mean cmon how bout they make the main story 80 or 90% of the game ffs instead of fleshing it out with crap. to say i was dissapointed with arkham city is a massive understatement
xxx128 on 19 Feb '12 said:
3d sandbox games just suck and i couldnt agree more. The whole concept only hurts gameplay.
solamon77 on 19 Feb '12 said:
Ideally, there should be room in gaming for both types of games. I love open world games like Skyrim or Dark Souls, but I also love more tightly designed games like Uncharted. I wouldn't want to see either type of game disappear.
IplayVideogames on 19 Feb '12 said:
I like being overwhelmed by areas in games, because then it's rewarding to know the area better as you progress through the game. Nobody would go to a city they've never been to and expect to know where to find everything they're looking for instantly. The whole fun of open-world games is the exploring aspect.
Reegeee on 19 Feb '12 said:
Arkham City is a bizarre example cos the actual game world is very small. I think this is a case of someone who doesn't like being distracted from the linear path. If there is something that AC does really well it's throwing different missions at you while you are on the way to doing something else.
I'm sure people would criticise this and so it ruins cohesion but it's a game not a book and I like the variety.
kmcroc on 19 Feb '12 said:
Me personaly i like open world games, love sides quest .
Besides who wants a game that only allows you to go from point A to point B, without any exploring or allowing you different options of playing the game.(JMO)
Flamestrike on 19 Feb '12 said:
Open world games can be excellent when done well, but it does seem as if many games that aren't suited to the mold are just shoehorned into open worlds for the sake of headline grabbing.
"Super Mario in his new open world adevnture!"
No thanks, just give me a striaght A to B platformer.
djreplay on 19 Feb '12 said:
It's not that I think Arkham City is crap, it's just travelling around Arkham is such a chore that I can't be bothered to turn the game on and face it. With Red Dead and GTA they get the fundamentals right with travelling being fun, I don't mind spending 10 mins to get across the map if it's enjoyable but with Batman I just pull my hair out.
The Bossman on 19 Feb '12 said:
I felt funnelled along in Arkham City if anything, I had no desire to explore because there wasn't much you could exactly do. Find riddler trophies, save a few people or beat up some thugs. I completed it and haven't played it since, Skyrim on the other hand I'm loving and reached level 10 yesterday. I think there should be MORE open worlds, there's not enough that give you that choice these days.
Balladeer on 19 Feb '12 said:
This.
I think that on the whole I prefer less open-worldy games. They allow either for tighter gameplay or tighter storytelling. Xenoblade Chronicles, probably my favourite game of last year, was almost everything a JRPG should be, but the amount of time just spent wandering was tedious, and even it was split up into chunks! On the other hand, Skyward Sword (my other favourite game of last year) went too far the other way, sacrificing the series staple of exploration and being all the worse for it.
But on the whole, I'm just an impatient sod. I like a little bit of searching but not too much wandering confusion, and I like to know that I've seen all the best bits of a game. And I like to be dragged along by an excellent story as well. So linear it is for me.
budge on 19 Feb '12 said:
Kingdoms Of Amalur, would you class it as an open world game or more of a linear one? Whichever it is, i'm enjoying it as much as Skyrim. Top game.
a3HeadedMonkey on 19 Feb '12 said:
This guy probably finds the world daunting & overwhelming as well then. The fact that there's always something new to see & explore, is exactly what makes it exciting. It's what makes exploring in games like Fallout & Red Dead so much fun & so immersive.
I don't know about anyone else, but the first 10 hours of a GTA game, where you don't know the city or where you're going, is the most enjoyable for me. A bit of the magic disappears once you've learnt your way around & you're no longer in danger of getting lost.
plain_kloz_cop on 20 Feb '12 said:
When Julius Caesar was told by his generals that he had conquered the entire known world, he was said to have wept bitterly. Open worlds are the way to go.
bluepumpkin on 20 Feb '12 said:
I think there should be a new "buzzword" to set the scale of the game. Open world is too vague perhaps. How about UBER world for (Skyrim / Arkham City) and then leave open world for DXHR, Prototype, ACR.
I actually agree a lot with the topic here but only on the way it is introduced, my issue with Batman Arkham City was it took me a while to be comfortable with the size. Like, Fallout 3 and Elder Scroll games I do find having the whole world available straight away a but daunting - I do persevere and they are amazing games but I would like it a bit more gradual at the start. I always though ACR/DXHR had it done well, it opens a bit at a time till there is a largish size but it is more gradual. However, it;s preference and as long as they use my new "UBER world" label we will all know what we are getting.
Very_Silver_Ownz on 20 Feb '12 said:
If you don't like Vice City or San Andreas there is no hope for you. These are two of the best games ever created.
tunnard on 24 Feb '12 said:
Arkham city was definitely a step in the right direction. An open world for a batman game helps immerse you as playing as a character that can fly all over a city. I thought it was really well implemented and made it a better experience than arkham asylum (which was still excellent)