Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: Less is more?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,770

    Less is more?

    Is it me or is the phrase "open world" hanging around a lot of games at the moment. Its almost like its a measure of a games quality or greatness if it is open world. Does everything need to be open world? There is still room for some good on-the-rails platformers out there isn't there?

    How open world would you like to see TR10?
    signature image

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Darwin, Australia
    Posts
    6,497
    some games can be linear like half life but being open world means more exploration and a little break from all the fighting or even puzzle solving (depends on the game of course).
    i enjoyed wondering around on the island, fighting hardly nothing, just enjoying the scenery and see things you would have missed if you would just follow the path.

    how open i want TR to be?
    big enough to explore and having different paths to reach your goal like being stealthy.
    signature image

  3. #3
    Well there's a number of things that do well in a linear world but become so much better in an open world, like: finding collectables, moving around in a fast paced way like freerunning, gliding, flying or rope-swinging and solving inventory-based puzzles. All of that fits perfectly in the Tomb Raider formula.

    I am stunned how much the already solid gameplay of Batman Arkham Asylum was improved in the sequel by going open world and I can see how it could work the same way for Tomb Raider.

    Letting Lara loose on a tropical Island like in Far Cry 3 with tons of collectable artifacts and upgradable abilities and tools, ancient pyramids (and preferably dinosaurs as well) would be a guaranteed succes... I think.

  4. #4
    Agreed. I think Tomb Raider should remain as it is, sort of semi-open world. Just include more nonlinear paths through enemy encampment, but don't make it fully open world like GTA or AC.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Plymouth, UK
    Posts
    6,474
    Unless the world is Just Cause 2 size, and actually full of stuff to do, I'd rather the game stayed as it is
    signature image

  6. #6
    And yes you are right, publishers seem to be throwing around that phrase a lot these days, inspired by GTA I guess. Making a game open wold doesn't automatically make it better.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Tecstar70 View Post
    How open world would you like to see TR10?
    There was so much talk about how much open world TR9 would have and some more open areas did appear in mountain village and Shipwreck beach areas. Most of the game did still feel like a linear path in the same way as it did LAU. That being said I wouldn't want to see full open world with vast area's like a JC or GTA map.

    What I do want to see is complex interior level designs. something like St Frances folly, Midas palace or Lost city of Tinnos. Where there are lots of floors and levels to climb, jump and explore and just as importantly where the route to go doesn't stand out like an obvious path.
    signature image

  8. #8
    It should only big as big as to avoid gratuitous amounts of empty filler that many open world games have. It should be dense with non-repetitive interesting content. If they can make a huge open world with that philosophy then go for it, otherwise no.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Yamatai
    Posts
    1,170
    I would love it both ways because:

    >If it were to be open world, I would like CD to create a vast, detail-full world. I'm talking a lot of interesting sights, interesting facts, superb history and many, many tombs. I imagined something like (if she were to go globe trotting) somewhere like Maccu Piccu where the whole area is to be explored. Or maybe somewhere like an old Japanese town.
    >If the game were to be semi-open/linear, then I would want to to be full of multiple paths, a lot of areas, and with many different things to do.

    But if I had to pick one option, it would have to be open world.
    signature image

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,378
    Tomb Raider 2013 may be on rails, but it hardly tests us as platformers.

    Open world is a measure of quality when the game is about exploring and discovering. I'd rather TR not be an on-rails platformer, Uncharted exists for that purpose, and it's overbearing combat encounters.

  11. #11
    I find it good as it was in the actually Tomb Raider, because it never felt like work, it was just really fluent to play through.
    Open world could ruin the gameplay, it don't has to, but it's possible, why taking the risk?

  12. #12
    Id like TR to be open world levels could be linear that is how a nice balance could be found.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by AnnomaLee View Post
    I find it good as it was in the actually Tomb Raider, because it never felt like work, it was just really fluent to play through.
    Open world could ruin the gameplay, it don't has to, but it's possible, why taking the risk?
    Exactly.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by AnnomaLee View Post
    Open world could ruin the gameplay, it don't has to, but it's possible, why taking the risk?
    Because nothing will ever be attempted or achieved if there's no risk being taken.

  15. #15
    If it ain't broke don't fix it.

  16. #16
    Well in my not-so-extensive gaming knowledge, I can say two things:

    1. If TR goes full-on open world, the graphics would take a hit. Linear games generally look better the open world ones because they don't have to render a bigass world, to put it simply. And I loved the scenery of TR.

    2. I found that the story flow takes a hit in many open wold games. The thing I liked in TR was that it constantly keeps you pushing forward. Probably won't be so if TR becomes open world with side missions, activities and such.

    As Ninja said, every game doesn't have to be open world to be awesome. Why try to fix something that ain't broken?

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by a big house View Post
    Unless the world is Just Cause 2 size, and actually full of stuff to do, I'd rather the game stayed as it is
    Problem is, I don't think any incarnation of Lara can actually skyjack a plane. And planes are needed to get around a world that big barring fast travel.

    Quote Originally Posted by pirate1802 View Post
    2. I found that the story flow takes a hit in many open wold games. The thing I liked in TR was that it constantly keeps you pushing forward. Probably won't be so if TR becomes open world with side missions, activities and such.
    But there's lots of fun in the between bits right? In TR, you have to run around for about 5 very boring minutes to find a campfire to fast travel about the place. In Prototype, for example, you have fun slaughtering everything between you and the mission start point in a near constant state of combat. Also Prototype/Just Cause 2 have their own little stories on the side to complement the big one.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by pirate1802 View Post
    As Ninja said, every game doesn't have to be open world to be awesome. Why try to fix something that ain't broken?
    Besides open world is not risky, it's as common as anything else these days.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,378
    Open world is a clear risk for TR considering how many people find story a pivotal aspect of the game, yet believe that both well-driven plots and open worlds oppose one another.

    Though they don't and it's a risk that should be taken.

  20. #20
    Almost all modern open world games are story driven. Batman Arkham, Assassin's Creed, GTA, Sleeping Dogs, Skyrim, Fallout, etc.

    It's just that aside from the usually linear main story they fill the world with countless side distractions.

    TR is already practically that. The only things missing are more side quests and ability to travel multiple hubs from the beginning.

    But I don't really care for that too much. I just want them to use the space of the hubs better for main story progression. Like doing non linear tasks that take you around the hubs for more than just collectibles and several pathways to get where you want or engage enemies with multiple options (like Summit Forest).

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,378
    Indeed, though most people I hear from don't seem to think story and open can go together.

    I want enemies to feel natural in hubs, and I want to constantly be in stealth if I want (with some exceptions), so like you said I want several pathways to get around or engage enemies. But also, hubs cannot just be collectibles. We need gameplay back. Gates to open, objects to find, things to do. Side-missions would be a blessing.

    Though I do yearn for the extra space and sense of journey that an open world would give.
    _____________________________________________________________

    The Witcher 3 is an incredibly gorgeous game, and it's an open world:



    Would be a perfect world for a Lara who sets out alone, into the wilderness, to uncover and solve the mysteries of the area.

  22. #22
    Strangely enough I think open world games need heavier narrative directions than linear games. In a linear game you know what to so, getting further into the level is direction in itself. In an open world game you need to be given tasks in order to feel like you're accomplishing something. And since these tasks are bound to repeat gameplay and environment the simplest way to differentiate them is through story context.

  23. #23
    I'm a huge, really huge open world fan, it's my favorite thing at all in games.

    But it would really ruin Tomb Raider 10, just for the simple fact that open world is always about YOU and Tomb Raider is about Lara, not the player.

    You get super powers and New York free to discover, this is when you want to BE the character, not find out about some back stories.
    Fallout 3 was a very interesting world to explore, and YOU the player had to deal with, whatever you found there.

    Even if we kept the old Lara, the badass one and she would just become a vessel for YOUR mind and you just play to be a badass chick, not Lara in particular.

    But the new Tomb Raider is about her as a person, I'm interested what she is doing, not how I would deal with this circumstances.

    It's not a RPG game and it will always be a casual game, and I think that good casual games are rare and they shouldn't change too much on the way the game is now, it's probably a fragile concept.

    And yes games should try new methods out and give us great new games like Portal, but there still is lots of stuff they can make some experiments with, beginning with the QTE's and replace it with a combat system XP

  24. #24
    Maybe open world like a globe and we pick places to cultures to go loot stealing their treasures thats what I liked about the old games. Bringing their culture back where people will appreciate it. (perhaps a trophy room would be nice too.)

  25. #25
    I think the posts in this thread perfectly highlight the possible pro's and risks of going open world. But the thing is that we'll never know unless it is tried. Sometimes something just has to be tried, and if it fails: lesson learned. There's nothing wrong with that. If it succeedes, we're glad that we tried it.

    But this 'if it ain't broken' argument that is always used by traditionalists is nothing but a proscription against progress. How about this saying: 'you don't have to be sick to get better.'

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •