It's one of the main drawbacks of an "open world" game, so much time and effort goes into fleshing out the areas with side quests and design that something is bound to be cut down. This is why I prefer more linear games, it allows the main story to be worked on more but this day and age everything is about being able to go anywhere and do anything and most people tend to get upset if they dont get it. I guess we just can't have both, it would be to massive of an undertaking.
I want to like this 100 times. Open worlds are great if you don't care about story, but all that wandering around just finding stuff and exploring comes at the cost of narrative depth, pacing and tension. I agree that a more directed design with a stronger storyline is preferable to a fairly flimsy plot and a sandbox, but for some reason everyone has a massive hard on for open worlds without realising that it means the story likely sucks. Comparing open world games like DAI and Skyrim to an entirely linear game like The Last of Us and you can see the difference in story presentation, dramatic tension, and character development that a more linear design gives. Going open world seems a very odd choice for a developer whose whole reputation is built around story and character development.





Retour en haut









