Outer Wilds and Darkwood are two more stellar examples of leaving the world open enough that you can choose where you tell your story, while keeping you reigned in just enough that the world isn't soured by barren expanses or empty 'discoveries'. Though they're on a smaller scale, they're perfect examples for what an open-world game should be
Elden ring is a good game and one of the best open world games out there, but I do think it fails to be a good souls game because its an open world. The difficulty that was unique to the souls formula is drained from the experience when you get a horse that is faster then any enemy in the game, Graces around every corner, open spaces where you can easily map out and control encounters and no limits or consequences to fast traveling. All the things I listed here are features that are directly tied to the implementation of an open world and are at odds with what made souls game, so immersive through its unforgiving and terrifying dungeon crawling experience. The fear that past souls games put in you when roaming around with too many souls or the stress levels you have from losing progress when trying to get to next bonfire is completely lost in Elden ring and the only time you will feel a fraction of that is when your in a legacy dungeon which we can all agree on are the best parts of the game and arguably better then past souls games. My point is that in my opinion all the problems that I and many others have with Elden ring is directly tied to all the new features that only exist because its an open world not because its the natural progression for the souls games, so just like you said in the video please bring back more focused games with branching pathways and hidden secrets. Its cool that they tried something new, but I cant help but feel that the open world held Elden ring back from being the perfect souls game.
I totally agree that it takes away from the structure of the game and the type of progression that happens as a result, however, I do think it's one of the best experiences for somebody getting into that type of gameplay. I also think exploring the world to better understand the deep lore is a great part of having an open world for that particular game. I think if they created some kind of hybrid experience it would be the perfect game.
@@dutchritz yeah would def enjoy that more. Having a dedicated area giving us a taste of what souls open world would feel like without needing to implement all the open world features that I feel like are a contradiction to the souls formula. Would definitely create more environment diversity compared to past games without overstaying its welcome like it did in Elden ring.
YT recommendations can be a gem :') One small point of feedback, maybe you can experiment a bit with voice modulation/ pacing. In between it almost felt like a rhythm that can make the talking feel boring even when the words said are interesting.
First off, I'd like to say this is a really well made video. Not sure why you don't have more views, considering your production is leagues better than the garbage AI channels flood the platform with. But on the topic of open traversal games, I'm not so sure I agree. I mean this subjectively, of course. I like open worlds. I like the freedom of looking in a certain direction, seeing something I like and going there, finding stuff to do, discovering secrets and pieces of story. Maybe that's a large part of why Elden Ring ended up being one of my favorite games, since it gives you the tiniest of hints on where you're supposed to go, but lets you find your own way forward. Of course, games like Assassin's Creed Valhalla, Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Starfield, Redfall, Ghost Recon Breakpoint, and all the other games that follow the Ubisoft-esque formula of a "checklist open world" are a slog to play, and are instead hindered by their massive worlds. Assassin's Creed games in particular fall flat when they are set in a massive open world with little verticality, since the very concept of parkour is all about opening up the vertical aspect of movement, instead of locking you into the two-dimensional plane. Imagine if the Batman Arkham games had most of their activities set on ground level, instead of the rooftop-and-ground mix that they are. The open traversal formula could be a nice middle ground between free exploration and guided progression, and would probably work for story-driven games a lot better than bland open worlds with haphazardly strewn-about activities of the same three kinds. However, it just doesn't feel right with me. I played a lot of games as a child that were broken up into zones defined by invisible walls, and I'd always wish I could cross those borders and go in any direction I wanted. Elden Ring's formula in particular works extremely well in my opinion, since it's one big open world separated into distinct areas which are seamlessly connected, letting you go wherever you want to, but still giving you a clear visual cue that you're progressing. That's just my two cents in the matter. (Or more than two cents considering how much I rambled)
Thank you for one, and two I totally understand what you're saying. I used a lot of examples of zone loaders when I was talking about open traversal, but then I started talking about how they've taken on a more semi-open world style. I think you can still get a lot of visible cues on where to go with a certain amount of openness to level design without having the game be completely open world. When I said open-traversal I wasn't necessarily talking about a Ocarina of Time-esk zone loader only. Games these days can create a more seamless experience like Jedi Survivor or Resident Evil 2 remake. Overall I'm just saying that detail is important, and creating a smaller scope for the sake of detail is generally a better way to create the majority of games.
@@dutchritz Definitely agree there. I much prefer smaller open worlds with more to them, than just wet blankets with different colours and not much else. If you meant semi-open worlds like in Jedi Survivor, then I can definitely get behind that.
These days game development seems to just be “quantity > quality” Even Elden Ring last year was From Software saying “quality > quantity, but we’ll include too much quality until it just becomes quantity.”
Honestly so many problems with the gaming industry at large could be helped by making games that are 12-15 hours long again. Not every game has to be the next Elden Ring/GTA5/Skyrim/RDR2/etc!
I agree, I don’t want to run into something every two seconds in an open world, but when I do run into something, I want it to feel new and unique from anything else I have experienced previously.
pretty much. Depth and divergences > space and linear gameplay. There's a mystery factor that is extremely underplayed in game development when it comes to exploration. Games need rabbit holes, not open fields.
Outer Wilds and Darkwood are two more stellar examples of leaving the world open enough that you can choose where you tell your story, while keeping you reigned in just enough that the world isn't soured by barren expanses or empty 'discoveries'. Though they're on a smaller scale, they're perfect examples for what an open-world game should be
I've heard really good things about Outer Wilds, can't say I'm very familiar with Darkwood though.
Elden ring is a good game and one of the best open world games out there, but I do think it fails to be a good souls game because its an open world. The difficulty that was unique to the souls formula is drained from the experience when you get a horse that is faster then any enemy in the game, Graces around every corner, open spaces where you can easily map out and control encounters and no limits or consequences to fast traveling.
All the things I listed here are features that are directly tied to the implementation of an open world and are at odds with what made souls game, so immersive through its unforgiving and terrifying dungeon crawling experience. The fear that past souls games put in you when roaming around with too many souls or the stress levels you have from losing progress when trying to get to next bonfire is completely lost in Elden ring and the only time you will feel a fraction of that is when your in a legacy dungeon which we can all agree on are the best parts of the game and arguably better then past souls games.
My point is that in my opinion all the problems that I and many others have with Elden ring is directly tied to all the new features that only exist because its an open world not because its the natural progression for the souls games, so just like you said in the video please bring back more focused games with branching pathways and hidden secrets. Its cool that they tried something new, but I cant help but feel that the open world held Elden ring back from being the perfect souls game.
I totally agree that it takes away from the structure of the game and the type of progression that happens as a result, however, I do think it's one of the best experiences for somebody getting into that type of gameplay. I also think exploring the world to better understand the deep lore is a great part of having an open world for that particular game. I think if they created some kind of hybrid experience it would be the perfect game.
@@dutchritz yeah would def enjoy that more. Having a dedicated area giving us a taste of what souls open world would feel like without needing to implement all the open world features that I feel like are a contradiction to the souls formula. Would definitely create more environment diversity compared to past games without overstaying its welcome like it did in Elden ring.
I love elden ring, but I also agree with every point you made
YT recommendations can be a gem :')
One small point of feedback, maybe you can experiment a bit with voice modulation/ pacing. In between it almost felt like a rhythm that can make the talking feel boring even when the words said are interesting.
Great essay, Man. I really enjoyed ⚡
Thank you very much! I had fun with that ending especially
open world games are too often just OPEN with no substance to them
great vid!
Wide and shallow pools
First off, I'd like to say this is a really well made video. Not sure why you don't have more views, considering your production is leagues better than the garbage AI channels flood the platform with.
But on the topic of open traversal games, I'm not so sure I agree. I mean this subjectively, of course. I like open worlds. I like the freedom of looking in a certain direction, seeing something I like and going there, finding stuff to do, discovering secrets and pieces of story. Maybe that's a large part of why Elden Ring ended up being one of my favorite games, since it gives you the tiniest of hints on where you're supposed to go, but lets you find your own way forward.
Of course, games like Assassin's Creed Valhalla, Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Starfield, Redfall, Ghost Recon Breakpoint, and all the other games that follow the Ubisoft-esque formula of a "checklist open world" are a slog to play, and are instead hindered by their massive worlds. Assassin's Creed games in particular fall flat when they are set in a massive open world with little verticality, since the very concept of parkour is all about opening up the vertical aspect of movement, instead of locking you into the two-dimensional plane. Imagine if the Batman Arkham games had most of their activities set on ground level, instead of the rooftop-and-ground mix that they are.
The open traversal formula could be a nice middle ground between free exploration and guided progression, and would probably work for story-driven games a lot better than bland open worlds with haphazardly strewn-about activities of the same three kinds. However, it just doesn't feel right with me. I played a lot of games as a child that were broken up into zones defined by invisible walls, and I'd always wish I could cross those borders and go in any direction I wanted. Elden Ring's formula in particular works extremely well in my opinion, since it's one big open world separated into distinct areas which are seamlessly connected, letting you go wherever you want to, but still giving you a clear visual cue that you're progressing.
That's just my two cents in the matter. (Or more than two cents considering how much I rambled)
Thank you for one, and two I totally understand what you're saying. I used a lot of examples of zone loaders when I was talking about open traversal, but then I started talking about how they've taken on a more semi-open world style. I think you can still get a lot of visible cues on where to go with a certain amount of openness to level design without having the game be completely open world. When I said open-traversal I wasn't necessarily talking about a Ocarina of Time-esk zone loader only. Games these days can create a more seamless experience like Jedi Survivor or Resident Evil 2 remake. Overall I'm just saying that detail is important, and creating a smaller scope for the sake of detail is generally a better way to create the majority of games.
@@dutchritz Definitely agree there. I much prefer smaller open worlds with more to them, than just wet blankets with different colours and not much else.
If you meant semi-open worlds like in Jedi Survivor, then I can definitely get behind that.
These days game development seems to just be “quantity > quality”
Even Elden Ring last year was From Software saying “quality > quantity, but we’ll include too much quality until it just becomes quantity.”
Watching this now that the Elden Ring DLC has been announced makes it hit so much harder 🔥 love the yoda example
It came to me randomly while writing lol
Honestly so many problems with the gaming industry at large could be helped by making games that are 12-15 hours long again. Not every game has to be the next Elden Ring/GTA5/Skyrim/RDR2/etc!
Exactly, scale is a huge issue with development these days.
solution is easy: git gud.
Amen brotha!
Ngl I prefer less-filled open worlds over zone loaders like the classic zeldas and god of war. I need that freedom to be able to go anywhere I want
That is an entirely valid preference. Open worlds can be fantastic if there's stuff to do in them.
I agree, I don’t want to run into something every two seconds in an open world, but when I do run into something, I want it to feel new and unique from anything else I have experienced previously.
pretty much. Depth and divergences > space and linear gameplay. There's a mystery factor that is extremely underplayed in game development when it comes to exploration. Games need rabbit holes, not open fields.