RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS - NOW IN 5$ LOOT BOXES

[Hurlshort]

I thought Kingdom Come was the sequel to Mount & Blade?

 

I mean, they've sure got the same systems down.

[Katphood]

I guess this is why I never bothered with Far Cry: Primal.

 

Edited March 13, 2018 by Katphood

[Azdeus]

 

What comes out first: Mount & Blade 2, Cyberpunk 2077, or Playstation 5?

Star Citizen

 

 

Duke Nukem Forever; Part Deux

[marelooke]

 

What comes out first: Mount & Blade 2, Cyberpunk 2077, or Playstation 5?

Star Citizen

 

 

But even that will be a few years after Half Life (2 Episode) 3, of course. We all know that's coming soon now that Valve is back to making games. Totally...

 

Really...

 

I think I might be stuck in the "setting myself up for disappointment" mood. Time to ask for a raise to keep the ball rolling

[Keyrock]

I guess this is why I never bothered with Far Cry: Primal.

 

It's not just Far Cry, this is a problem with open world games in general.  The vast majority of open world games suffer from what I call Ubisoft Syndrome, that being a giant map littered with a ludicrous amount of icons, which are 90% repetitive busy work.  Even the really good open world games suffer from Ubisoft Syndrome, they just manage to be fun despite this problem because they manage to do some things really well to drive the player forward and keep them invested while they continually do what amounts to tedious chores.  I'll throw out a few examples of the better (IMHO) AAA open world games of the last half decade or so and what they did to overcome Ubisoft Syndrome.

 

• The Witcher 3 manages to dress up the busy work really well, making the tedious chores more palatable.  Plus it has a compelling story and good characters to keep you invested.
• Watch_Dogs 2 has a legitimately likable protagonist and a cast of characters that you give a damn about.  Also, the Bay Area is a great setting.
• Sleeping_Dogs has a terrific setting, in Hong Kong, and some cool characters, even if the game often doesn't spend nearly enough time on them.
• Mad Max makes traversing the map really fun, which is important, since you will spending the vast majority of the time doing just that.
• Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag, like Mad Max, makes traversing the world really fun, and it drives you to find more sea shanties for the crew to sing.

These games are good despite all being afflicted with Ubisoft Syndrome, but the problem is still there.  The issue is that developers feel the need to provide hundreds upon hundreds of things for the player to do, to run up the playing time, because there is a perception that playing time = value.  It's a lot easier to program half a dozen different activities and just copy paste them across the landscape than it is to make a bunch of unique content.  Personally, I'd rather have a game with half as much content where the vast majority of it is unique and crafted from the ground up, but that's not the way of things these days.

[Malcador]

 

Not much of an update, I guess.

[Mamoulian War]

 

I guess this is why I never bothered with Far Cry: Primal.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJvEUTurOBo

It's not just Far Cry, this is a problem with open world games in general. The vast majority of open world games suffer from what I call Ubisoft Syndrome, that being a giant map littered with a ludicrous amount of icons, which are 90% repetitive busy work. Even the really good open world games suffer from Ubisoft Syndrome, they just manage to be fun despite this problem because they manage to do some things really well to drive the player forward and keep them invested while they continually do what amounts to tedious chores. I'll throw out a few examples of the better (IMHO) AAA open world games of the last half decade or so and what they did to overcome Ubisoft Syndrome.

• The Witcher 3 manages to dress up the busy work really well, making the tedious chores more palatable. Plus it has a compelling story and good characters to keep you invested.
• Watch_Dogs 2 has a legitimately likable protagonist and a cast of characters that you give a damn about. Also, the Bay Area is a great setting.
• Sleeping_Dogs has a terrific setting, in Hong Kong, and some cool characters, even if the game often doesn't spend nearly enough time on them.
• Mad Max makes traversing the map really fun, which is important, since you will spending the vast majority of the time doing just that.
• Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag, like Mad Max, makes traversing the world really fun, and it drives you to find more sea shanties for the crew to sing.

These games are good despite all being afflicted with Ubisoft Syndrome, but the problem is still there. The issue is that developers feel the need to provide hundreds upon hundreds of things for the player to do, to run up the playing time, because there is a perception that playing time = value. It's a lot easier to program half a dozen different activities and just copy paste them across the landscape than it is to make a bunch of unique content. Personally, I'd rather have a game with half as much content where the vast majority of it is unique and crafted from the ground up, but that's not the way of things these days.

Yakuza series says Hello!!!

[Malcador]

Saints Row 4 was the worst example of that in a game I have played.

[Lexx]

Then you haven't played Saints Row - Gat out of Hell yet! :>

[Malcador]

Then you haven't played Saints Row - Gat out of Hell yet! :>

 

Well SR3 left me teetering on the brink of boredom, SR4 knocked me over - even that joke about apotheosis didn't help

[Fenixp]

• Mad Max makes traversing the map really fun, which is important, since you will spending the vast majority of the time doing just that.

Well, aside from that, Mad Max also managed to do one thing extremely right - while the map was icon-o-static, the core gameplay was rock solid, and it constantly built on those foundations, and care went to everything from common loot locations (even the filler ones often served by adding to the game's flavor) all the way to main missions. And while icons on the map were always the same, developers routinely tried to vary gameplay of outpusts/loot locations/boss locations up - by using several factions which behaved somewhat differently, by new layouts and little environmental puzzles...

 

While liberating another outpost in Far Cry 4 felt the same as liberating all the ones that came before it, unlocking a new location in Mad Max often felt like playing a new level in a very solid brawler. You can make even icon-a-thons interesting if you put enough thought into designing them and varying them up - altho, then there were bits which were repetitive, like hunting sniper nests or taking down the 'boss' vehicles. (the vehicular combat and physics were utterly stellar tho, so yes, moving about was just fun in itself.)

 

I always felt like there's generally two types of open-world (or open-ended in general) games - ones that rely on developers to provide content (Ubisoft model), while others rely on systematic mechanics to do so (Bethesda's model, games like STALKER being the best example - it's games that create a world with a complex set of rules that then lead to an array of emergent stories developing as opposed to trying to create all of the player's fun for the player.)

Edited March 13, 2018 by Fenixp

[Katphood]

The issue is that developers feel the need to provide hundreds upon hundreds of things for the player to do, to run up the playing time, because there is a perception that playing time = value.

Lastability!

 

Yup, that is a word according to the good ol Mean Machines.

[Blarghagh]

Think it's about time for a refresh.