Thread: DX:MD: Why no Open world, Physics and size?

DX:MD: Why no Open world, Physics and size?

  1. #1

    Question DX:MD: Why no Open world, Physics and size?

    Does anyone know why mankind did not go for massive open world? They could have done a massive city for someone to explore! Other upcoming games are doing that have a massive rich world.

    Also does anyone know the size of the maps in mankind? And also will there be physics in the game so damage is realistic and environment can be destructible? Thanks!

  2. #2
    Open world games make for terrible narrative. Just look at Metal Gear Solid 5.

  3. #3
    Why would narrative be terrible if it starts out in a city and expand? You dont need to have a whole living earth at game launch just an area big enough for open world but with good story telling.

    If story telling can be good in a small area it can also be done in a larger city.

    MGS is more of a tactical shooter then story telling. Your in the world you can do what you want but it does not have the same kind of game play that Deus or fallout 4. Its go in there and start blowing things up so telling a good story is not its strong points.

    Open world does not mean it needs to be massive blood shed extremely and controversial scenes like in MGS.

  4. #4
    It's either open world with a poor narrative and less detailed environments, or a closed world with very detailed environments and a solid narrative. It's less control for developers versus more control.
    Rule 30: A little trust goes a long way. The less you use, the further you'll go.

  5. #5
    A strong Main narrative not possible in open world because it forces players to follow a certain path. In an open world you can go anyway. Witcher 3 is a good example of doing your own thing with a story. And open world can be very complex also but there is a trade off strong narrative to shaping the world. If you like going to places and exploring and doing similar mission then it would be the game you get if you don't mind the open narrative.
    Last edited by DrStephenMeyer; 11th Oct 2015 at 12:05.

  6. #6
    Open world games destroy the primary story. Look what happened to Witcher 3. Everything about that game is great except the main story. The main story is all over the place. The pacing is horrible.

    Then again the only good part about human revolution was the DLC story, that was well done, the part where you discover Elisa's secret was cool, other than that the rest of the game's story was horrible.

    Selling out to open world means you could make the big bucks.

    I personally don't care since Human Revolution burned me with it's stupid ending.

  7. #7
    But I think its okay because wither 3 did very well even though as you said the main story was just bad. And how was the quest if you know? Are the quest repetitive?

    I think open world games is just make your own story and players seem to like that even though the adventure is just missing
    compared to games like Deus ex.

    I think if withcher 3 did well and there is another game too that is on the top of steam charts and that is Ark evolved it does not have a good main story but player could do what they want and its receiving high scores!

    But also fallout new vegas is also right on top too because of the endless mods! So a game that keeps on growing also do very well even though players have finish it.

    A good game does not always mean that you need a very good narrative to hold the players attention if the details are they in the game then it could work.

    Open world also do not have challenging AI that has a life of its own if it is open world it would be straight shooting RPG that will be the aim of the whole game. Have not seen an open world that is set in post world that has no zombies but its modern so you got all those modern gadgets. There are survival modern games but its not as complex in what you can do.

    I think if there had a living AI population and they learn and were smart and had the ability to use many different skills like in witcher 3 so you have this deep interaction with the world it could work with keeping player really immerse in the game.

    Open world always feel like there is no life in it but when you add AI that has a life of its own then things start changing!

    Like imaging there was an open world where you could explore real or modified American cities? Go into those tall skyscraper or go down deep underground? And clutter it like in Deus ex mankind? Like every time can be pick up and used if you go into an office? So it could be complex content instead of a complex narrative to keep players immerse in the game because they is just so much to do and explore. I am not sure if this is a good thing or not to keep players stuck to the screen hours on end. But perhaps it might also be a good way to signal to players that dont need to sit at home all day. And see that they got good skills they can use in the real world! If they can do it in the virtual world why not the real? Sometimes they just need motivation to show what they can do. A game could do this too and still be a game.

    And with mankind the ending is not going to be like HR because each action you take through out the game has a different ending! So if you want a different ending then you have to make those right choices!
    Last edited by DrStephenMeyer; 12th Oct 2015 at 01:57.

  8. #8
    If you want immersive open world with good AI get Stalker. Lost Alpha is even free. There are zombies though...

  9. #9
    How about an open world with a small area? So they can expand the city? So it can start of small like in the games of Deus ex and gradually grow and get bigger? Then it would work I think?

    Do you know why they are only cities in the game and it does not have a mixture of environments like in real cities? They would also be the mountains, forest, swamps? Would it be more work for them? I was thinking they could just create some maps that are cities and some with suburbs or forest? And it will be interesting to play stealth in a forest!
    Last edited by Lady_Of_The_Vine; 16th Oct 2015 at 09:10. Reason: merged double-post

  10. #10
    I like your idea, but I think that the steam-punk genre is more suited for cities or closed areas (as in the missing link mission), I would like to see a mission on a train or a side quest where you actually go out of the city to a secret bunker let's say in a desert (Dubai, hint.. hint.. ).

  11. #11
    The Human Revolution did the openess well, and the original did it even better. An open world doesn't suit Deus Ex imo, and I really don't think it'd work, or at least it's not something I want introduced anyway.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,270
    To chime in on Witcher 3 example (which is my favourite game of probably the last decade)

    Open-world is not an easy thing to reconcile with a strong narrative. Witcher 3 partially got around this by throwing in incredible writing into side-quests, including making some "optional" decisions feed back to the main line), but for the most part it was still the trick of "ok, now sit down, and play this scriptedsequence of setpieces which you can't leave" (which was friggin awesome, btw), and then we'll restrict your ability to do side-stuff partially, until you finish the main plot"

    Taken as one linear whole, even the early sections of the narrative are quite solid, by AAA standards. But putting them among the expansive explorable world, and giving player choice over timing really diminishes the impact. It's an inevitable consequence- players get distracted by "open world" and the pacing suffers. Moreover, if your story is trying to maintain a sense of urgency the open-world tone of "hmm, I wonder if there's anything cool on the othe side of that hill on the horizon" creates a strong dissonance with the "look, Y is in trouble, you must rescue them at once!"

    So I think MD maintaining maintaining a narrative focus is a good thing. At its core, DX is a series of challenges or "encounters" - it offers multiple ways to deal with these, but it's best-defined when the tasks are left discrete and separated. The "Hubs" approach offer a chance to engage in limited-scope role-play, within confines that are still easy for narrators to handle, maintaining the choice-based framework, but not spreading too thinly.

    To put it simpler, if you make a big open world, in order to keep it ALL interesting and the narrative reactivity going, you would need a VERY large number of possibilities covered. And that's very hard to do. Look at Alpha Protocol- that game is virtually built around reacting to Mike's actions, no matter which order he visits the 3 hubs and completes missions in each hub (meeting various characters). There's a finite, but very large number of possibilities here- and that's just 3 hubs, 5-6 missions each, and anywhere between 1-5 possible "choice moments" in each (which will have 2-4 outcomes each). These don't seem like big numbers, but try accounting accounting for ALL permutations!

    And trying to bring this type of framework (which was only loosely used in the original and IW, but became the core of Alpha Protocol) to an open world... well, it'd take literally forever if you want to keep ALL of the open world interesting.
    Bring back 5 character logins.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    6
    Have you played any of the other Deus Ex games? Why would they turn this into an Open World series?

    It would harm narrative and the DX style gameplay.

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by DrStephenMeyer
    Does anyone know why mankind did not go for massive open world? They could have done a massive city for someone to explore! Other upcoming games are doing that have a massive rich world.

    Also does anyone know the size of the maps in mankind? And also will there be physics in the game so damage is realistic and environment can be destructible? Thanks!
    Budget and complexity, basically. It is REALLY expensive to development an open-world RPG with the graphics and interactivity of the DX franchise, not only expensive as hell as it's also a nightmare to bug-test the thing and have it run stable at 30fps across consoles, and still deliver a scalable performance on PC. Not to forget the fact that you're competing against consolidated titans such as Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Witcher, amongst others.

  15. #15
    Not every game needs to be open-world. There are plenty of open-world games out there already even before counting those currently in development. I like open-world games but I also like more linear games as well. I don't want one to disappear just because I like the other. The hub area system that Human Revolution had worked well and it's not a bad thing if that's kept in Mankind Divided.

    I don't want every game to be a massive 100+ hour open-world experience, even though I'm a fan of several series like The Elder Scrolls that are like that. Sometimes mid-sized games like Deus Ex: Human Revolution are good to have as well. If it takes anything away from the story (which is one of the main things Deus Ex is about) then it's not worth it. Linear games that have "gone open-world" have ended up having a worse or less focused story because of it.

  16. #16
    I think the main issue is the upgrading system of Deus Ex. AN open world would means you have to consider people who explore certain areas could have, or not have the required tools. If they put a hard requirement for certain areas, it could work, but it may make people frustrated, when they cannot gain access to most areas, & wonder why

    In many open world RPG, they get away by scaling enemies levels. In Deus Ex, the environment is as important, if not more than enemies.

    I think a gradual expanding open world, where certain areas open up after gameplay checkpoints, will work.