First question is why is ubisoft obsessed with their open world games? They've got like 4 of them coming out in one freakin' year. To be honest though its actually kind of cool. While most people attack the trends by being them, Ubisoft seems to know how to invent their own sort of trendy COD-like release pattern with games that use different mechanics while still being accessible and familiar... and really capitalize on triple A. Ok real question is what is it about Watch Dogs that gets people excited? I see it as two things. 1) That awesome original E3 trailer... it was both really impressive and didn't have much for competition during that show. 2) New open world game for a new generation... even if its cross-gen multi-platform. Apart from infamous you don't really have much competition there..... and heck no I'm not counting AC4. Damnit ubisoft, you're everywhere with this stuff.
Ok but in all seriousness I've found it a bit interesting that Watchdogs has been doing so well. It was a nice new IP that has a nice twist about it, but in the end I think people aren't exactly wrong to associate it with GTA. Its not that it is a clone, because honestly GTA is one of the founders and its kind of rare we see anything truly differ a lot, but honestly... it just looks like another open world game. Don't get me wrong now, I don't think that's necessarily bad. I'm not exactly the type of person for it all the time, I really end up taking more in and enjoying the ride more within linear games. However there's also a specific reason open world really doesn't as good to me, and honestly I think Watchdogs may fall into the problem. It goes like this... follow quest, drive from A to B to get something done, go to next quest, do what it says and get some good exposition. After that you sadly need to do something you really hate... like trailing someone, or escape the cops even though you do that ALL the time when you're not in a mission. next quest and... well this is familiar, this was the same objective as the first mission. Put it on loop and you have the normal open world formula IF you go straight at the core. If you do not, well there are side missions.... like taking territory by killing specific people. Or racing. Or a side quest that is exactly like one of the repeating mission sequences. And there are like 10 of each type of those side quests. Then you have a sandboxy open world to play in. Out of that the latter sounds like the only real fun one. This is kind of the problem I have with a lot of open world games, its a straight and obvious repetition. As soon as I seen a trailer of Watchdogs where you can only hack an area after you clear an area, I think we all knew what kind of a grind we would be in for.
 |
| Only 7 more areas to go! |
Now you can say the same about linear games to a small extent, but truth is the depth of a good one helps it avoid this. In Half-Life 2 you had to solve physics puzzles, shoot zombies, shoot combine, solve physics puzzles, shoot combines, talk with friendlies, then shoot more zombies... yeah you get the point. However the difference here is the level design. Yup its linear, but each area you walk into was custom tailored to be balanced specifically right, give you an interesting variety of choices, has its own set of textures and secrets, and the game progressively escalates. Open world games have so little if any of that. The world is huge, but shares a lot of the same resources, is built in larger inaccessible quantities rather than small details and quality, and you have access to a lot of it for the whole game meaning you need to be comfortable with it to really enjoy the rest of the content. Meanwhile the linear world surprises you with each new step, and even if you need to revisit an area like Dishonored's hub world its been made to expect you to return and to reward you with new collectibles, optional character dialogue, and fine details to prepare you for your next mission whereas an open world game does this through audio only or a quick cut-scene.
However to its credit the open world games have done one major improvement to help themselves out here... that escalation problem is mostly fixed. At least half the games now have a long list of buildable, upgradable, and interesting powers or perks that increase over time. While XP and progressions systems are almost by definition a grind (as well as an overrated plague on multiplayer games), it actually fits so well within open world games. By doing just about anything you're getting XP, and you get a lot of it for doing missions and putting yourself up to tasks, so you're actually being given new and interesting stuff as the game urges you along. While a linear game brings up new enemy types and high end weapons in a late linear game, Saints Row 4 is about to let you rank up to being able to use a special Ice blast and complete that elemental collection of powers. It feels pretty equal as a quality surprise to find myself running into without feeling like I'm grinding for it. By the time I've been able to get all the powers, the game has been finished or wrapping up and I feel satisfied and end my progression on par with where the game wants me to while keeping this energy with me that felt enthusiastic. Admittedly that's when it starts dying down and nothing is new, and all missions are complete, but by then you can be able to say a game is done... so its all good, and if anything that's where the open world aspect shines because you can call it done on your own terms. Sort of.
You know what never had a lot of these problems though.... Far Cry 3. Not 2 though, that was the exact opposite. 2 might as well be the very essence of repetitive open world gaming. FC3 tied up really good and fun FPS gameplay that had tactics, good inventory, and customization then mixed it in with an open world setting that felt fresh, had objectives that usually involved going into otherwise inaccessible areas, introduced interesting character as it went along, and allowed you to upgrade your abilities with a tattoo themed XP system. You still had some feeling of grind to it with repetitive side missions, and a two step territory system, but honestly that was fine when the rest of the game stayed so fresh, compelling, and fun. When you pace things out right it becomes so much less of a grind. I'll be glad to take a break from the main part of the game to go and eliminate 3 outposts in a row if the rest of the game is so well paced and interesting. When I actually did get around to finishing the main story line, got 90% of the tattoo filled, and got anything I could want with weapons, it felt like I had reached the ending. However rather than the end of a grind that just lead me to feeling like I had to toy with stuff until full boredom (saints row 3 comes to mind here), it felt like a satisfying and complete ending. It also lasted me triple the length of a regular game, and it still feels good to come back from time to time. I truly believe Far Cry 3 stumbled onto a formula that set the bar a bit higher for certain open world games. So... its kind of awkward to see a game like WatchDogs and wonder how I'm supposed to be as excited.... especially when Far Cry 4 is now coming out in the same year.
So far the only true info known is that its set in a new mountain-like setting, has a civil war conflict going on, and that the main character sounds like he has a far more promising plot than FC3's protagonist that jumps from frightened to bloodthirsty within a couple of lines. Oh and elephants are like vehicles now... yay? Ok in all seriousness now I can really be excited for the general concept of this game. FC3's formula in a less explored setting, new mechanic adjustments, a promising story, and everyone should know what the official artwork looks like by now and its is really well detailed. Also as a mega-fan pointed out when looking into details, the FC3 multiplayer developer is not contributing to this project, meaning we might be seeing a better more inspiring multiplayer this time around. If Far Cry 4 really were to just improve... I'm truly more excited about that more so than watch dogs. Maybe it'll also help the whole open world style if yet another one makes itself such a big hit.
Now again this is all my opinion and from the point of view from someone that just naturally prefers linear. Heck with Far Cry in mind the original is my preference even over 3. Still I can respect and enjoy open world games, and I can see why they appeal to some people. To some people an open world game is the difference between full interaction, expression, and fun while linear is just a hallway with an arrow. However I do think its time we started seeing more open world games stray away from the repetition within the main gameplay line. I get that it will often exist in the DNA, I don't expect them to develop every sidequest or goal by its own philosophy and story line, but what can happen is higher quality main storylines that compliments the rest of the world and player interaction. I hope WatchDogs turns out fun for everyone that's excited, but I'll mostly be looking forward to FarCry 4. Speaking of which I think its time I go back and relive some of the fun from FC3. Maybe after my uber run on Wolfenstein.
No comments:
Post a Comment