Rant time. Well, I'll just say, that being an overweight, single, white guy with glasses, in his 20's, it's a given that I'd be pretty big into PC games. Dare I say, I'm a gamer.
Now, what puzzles me, is that I've had numerous conversations with other people that are like-minded, but a lot of them seem to share one interesting caveat. A lot of people I have talked to don't seem to like open-world games! What in the heck? How could someone not like the idea of a virtual world to play in, unless it has stiff train tracks to ride along? Doesn't that defeat the point of the very evolution of video games in general? I just don't understand at all how someone cannot enjoy just being plopped into a living, breathing, completely open world, and have complete freedom in a game. Do they need to have someone holding their hand all day? I wanted to know why this is...
After having been told by someone that they didn't like open-world games, I had to know why. So, I asked them. They replied something to the effect of, "there's just too much choice", or, "it's too overwhelming", or "I don't know where to go or what to do." This, of course made me wonder aloud, "so you don't like them because they made you choose what to do first? That makes you sound like a brain-dead idiot. By your reasoning, you would also get depressed every time you went to get groceries, because there are five supermarkets within a one block distance, but you can't do it because there isn't an employee of one of them with you to let you know which one to go to. Maybe you should look into communism, perhaps it's your thing."
It was at that point they got upset and said that I just don't like linear games. Not true. There are plenty of linear games that I enjoy and that I will play on a regular basis. Yes, games like Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem 3D and even Call of Duty 4, are things I still play all the time. The thing that boggles my mind, is that some modern games of today have barely deviated from this formula, but they still remain just as popular if not more popular than open-world games.
Heck, it's still so popular, that it's destroying what little amount of innovation and originality that the industry has in general. Take for instance, Far Cry. A game that follows a bland linear storyline, but lets you tear around on vast open terrain, in multiple ways, to let you accomplish objectives in the way that you saw fit. Fast-forward to today and you have Crysis 2. Still done by the same devs, but the game is nothing more than a standard shooter with little to no originality in it's gameplay at all, and gives you almost no freedom to roam around or choose objective's priority like it did in even that game's immediate predecessor.
Even games that made their name by being open-world and original, have gone the way of the Beta-max. The Rainbow Six franchise, for example, has de-evolved from a tactical, open environment, semi-realistic shooter, to become a soulless, standard run-and gun nonsense with no realism at all. The same goes for the previously mentioned Crysis, Medal of Honor, Halo, soon Red Faction, and others. It's a process I like to call bastardization.
Alas, I will retire from my soapbox, but please, consider my argument, and discuss amongst yourselves as to why this is.
Now, what puzzles me, is that I've had numerous conversations with other people that are like-minded, but a lot of them seem to share one interesting caveat. A lot of people I have talked to don't seem to like open-world games! What in the heck? How could someone not like the idea of a virtual world to play in, unless it has stiff train tracks to ride along? Doesn't that defeat the point of the very evolution of video games in general? I just don't understand at all how someone cannot enjoy just being plopped into a living, breathing, completely open world, and have complete freedom in a game. Do they need to have someone holding their hand all day? I wanted to know why this is...
After having been told by someone that they didn't like open-world games, I had to know why. So, I asked them. They replied something to the effect of, "there's just too much choice", or, "it's too overwhelming", or "I don't know where to go or what to do." This, of course made me wonder aloud, "so you don't like them because they made you choose what to do first? That makes you sound like a brain-dead idiot. By your reasoning, you would also get depressed every time you went to get groceries, because there are five supermarkets within a one block distance, but you can't do it because there isn't an employee of one of them with you to let you know which one to go to. Maybe you should look into communism, perhaps it's your thing."
It was at that point they got upset and said that I just don't like linear games. Not true. There are plenty of linear games that I enjoy and that I will play on a regular basis. Yes, games like Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem 3D and even Call of Duty 4, are things I still play all the time. The thing that boggles my mind, is that some modern games of today have barely deviated from this formula, but they still remain just as popular if not more popular than open-world games.
Heck, it's still so popular, that it's destroying what little amount of innovation and originality that the industry has in general. Take for instance, Far Cry. A game that follows a bland linear storyline, but lets you tear around on vast open terrain, in multiple ways, to let you accomplish objectives in the way that you saw fit. Fast-forward to today and you have Crysis 2. Still done by the same devs, but the game is nothing more than a standard shooter with little to no originality in it's gameplay at all, and gives you almost no freedom to roam around or choose objective's priority like it did in even that game's immediate predecessor.
Even games that made their name by being open-world and original, have gone the way of the Beta-max. The Rainbow Six franchise, for example, has de-evolved from a tactical, open environment, semi-realistic shooter, to become a soulless, standard run-and gun nonsense with no realism at all. The same goes for the previously mentioned Crysis, Medal of Honor, Halo, soon Red Faction, and others. It's a process I like to call bastardization.
Alas, I will retire from my soapbox, but please, consider my argument, and discuss amongst yourselves as to why this is.
No comments:
Post a Comment