Though I also really liked Saints Row 2, I also appreciated the realism of GTA IV. Not necessarily because of the violence, but because it blended wit its gritty and dismal storyline. The Euphoria engine also generates physics that I haven't been as impressed by since ragdolls were first introduced. As far as the "nothing to do" bit goes, all I have is this to say:
Time it took me to complete GTA IV - 44 hours
Time it took me to complete Saints Row 2 - 21 hours
Taxis were also a genius addition.
The article also seems to be just another amaturish and dated GTA vs SR rant, and has little to do with open sandbox environments. Where's mention of Fallout 3, Godfather II, and Boarderlands?
Listen to Iced Earth and play Doom
Open world = boredom.
I'll start with an ad hominem attack by pointing out that that quote is from "PC Gamer" so of course she or he is going to want games that, "...line up amusing things to do, then set you down at the start." This is clearly someone who prefers the arcade row of the town fair over the excitement of exploring an environment by himself.
The core element of his argument seems to be that people preferred Saint's Row 2 over GTA4 because it was more linear than Rockstar's offering. That is clearly not the case as both games were just as open. Most gamers preferred the lack of story over Houser's Scocese-like treatment of what has been, up until now, a tongue-in-cheek portrayl of crime as it is portrayed in pop culture.
I personally do prefer linear games over open-world ones, but the argument as presented is weak.
No.
The open world games that work, like GTA, work cause they allow you to do what you want when you want. Part of the fun of GTA is doing driving around and not knowing what you will find, not knowing if a mini game is about to start, or if you will steal a cop car and start doing vigilante missions. You can ignore the main missions and look for hidden items or secret missions. If it was all in a line it would just be an action game where the action isnt as good as most of the linear games.
Open world games give you a playground to mess with, you can choose what you want to play with, the game should not force you along. You know what this is the exact issue with Dead Rising Wii, DR was an open game, it allowed you to make decisions, to explore, not the wii game. Its now a linear series of escort missions that make me want to rip my hair out. Let open world games by open world and let linear games be linear.
I love linear games but most open world games are linear. I don't seem to GTA's story being unlinear. Sure you chose between who died in the ending but somebody still died and it didn't really matter who it was (partly because the story was predictable and not emotionally invovling due to its characters that were unsucessful satires of Ganster melodram). Look at Oblivion to. A game that is meant to be Oblivion. YES you can go and do whatever side quest you want, but can you join the other side for example? Hell most of the side quests don't even give you much choice. poison the dude or not? That's not un-linear it's a simple yes or no question with two linear outcomes.Blah.
To me open world games are pretty much a game with a traditional set of missions that you can do in any order you want. The problem is a lack of focus, when you let the technology do the work and its a bit too big, too boring to get around and traverse.
I think open world games work, but they need to be done right in the first place, that's the problem. Not open world games but bad open world games.
Open world games like GTA work because of what Vader said. You never know what you're gonna find ahead of you. I can't tell you how many times I got sidetracked while doing a mission because I saw something that sparked my interest. I love that.
No More Heroes is a perfect example of what to not to do. The open world was boring.
travo said:Open world games like GTA work because of what Vader said. You never know what you're gonna find ahead of you. I can't tell you how many times I got sidetracked while doing a mission because I saw something that sparked my interest. I love that.
No More Heroes is a perfect example of what to not to do. The open world was boring.
I hear you, that was awful and so pointless.
GTA though depends on the variety of things to do, that is why GTA IV caught flak. Not because it was open world.
I dont think open world is the future of games or anything, but as an approach its just as valid and welcome as a tailored designed style. Not sure how I feel about games like Metal Gear becoming open world though.
P.S we are meeting Bugs at 6pm GMT for KK slider 
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=212680
Over the last 15 years, the mainstream of gaming has shifted from highly-prescribed, two dimensional trips from A-to-B into sprawling 3D cities - whole worlds! - where the player finds their own way. The public reaction? You can hardly hear the demented applause for the over-excited gasps. But let's be honest: open worlds are a big backwards stumble. They're not progress. They're not even what you really want.
Consider the backlash against GTA IV. Despite a rapturous original reception, popular opinion now holds that it's too po-faced, too serious and too lacking in easy-access unrealism to be fun. It's just too big and open!
The argument then invariably turns to Saint's Row 2, and how that game - by contrast - is stuffed so full of things to do you end up achieving them without even realising you were going to. You can hardly steal a car, piledrive through a windscreen or attack one of its suspiciously multitudinous scantily-clad women without some kind of award, minigame or event popping up. This, the argument goes, makes it wildly superior, as if quantity were the sole measure of fun.
The quality of Saint's Row 2's events never seem to figure. It's enough that you can take a hostage and get into a police chase with hardly a thought, so never mind that the cop AI is so simple there's no point, or the vehicle handling so soft and safe you could serve it to babies instead of apple puree. Or that accusations of misogyny, anti-intellectualism and cruelty have never been entirely quashed.
Do you know why this witless game is defended by so many? It really is because there's so much stuff to do; so much easily-come-by stuff it effectively negates being open-world at all. That's its trick. It has none of GTA's realism, and consequently never has to deal with the reality of the actual (open) world. Try walking in your real-life neighbourhood. It's unexciting. Rockstar have unravelled great strings of tangled, believable streets before us, but - believably - there's actually little or nothing you can do with them.
On the other hand, SR 2 mimics more traditional, prescribed games in that it constantly plonks something in front of you and lets you get on with playing. And a significant amount of gamers are so desperate for this kind of guided, 'linear' (such a dirty word!) experience they overlook the fact that what's been plonked in front of them is a tame, massless and empty hologram of something fun.
The answer is obvious. Developers should stop wasting years building great cities - and trying to make them interactive - and instead spend years creating interesting things to do. Then they could put all these interesting, high-quality things in a mostly straight line of a game and let us get on with enjoying them. You might dub this approach 'new linear.' Try saying it without the dismissive lip-curl characteristic of such outmoded ideas as black and white television, LP records or a National Health Service. Linear! Linear! And relax.
Having to commute by taxi to the fun is a backwards step. Welcoming poor quality fun because it comes in quantity is a backwards step. Games that line up amusing things to do, then set you down at the start, are on the mainline to pleasure, progress and the future.
PC GAMER
Thoughts?