Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
543 replies to this topic




  • Members
  • 7358 posts
  • Location:Someplace in Canada
  • Xbox Gamertag:Pft, consoles.
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

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 :p




  • Members
  • 2072 posts
  • Steam:Fenixp
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!
  • 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 by Fenixp, 13 March 2018 - 08:15 AM.

  • Azdeus and Keyrock like this




  • Members
  • 2234 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

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.


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



    Forum Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2582 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Steam:funderbunk

Think it's about time for a refresh.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users