Share this article:
 Digg.com Facebook Google Bookmarks N4G Gamerblips del.icio.us Reddit Slashdot.org StumbleUpon 1) To each his own.
2) I have played and enjoyed Saints Row (1), then I have played and enjoyed GTA4 and still love it.
3) Devs should focus on creating, big, living, believable worlds and giving the player something fun to do in them, not pick one of the two.
4) Playing as a Latin transexual and beating people with a giant banana prop is not everyone's idea of a fun game, especially if it lasts for more than 15 minutes.
5) Open worlds are not a step backwards, they are a possible trade-off between focus and freedom, between being led towards fun and being left to find your own, at the risk of not getting any.
6) I value the linear model just as the open one, but I think it's out of discussion that they are branches of game design, not different steps on a single path.
7) What exactly is wrong with GTA4? :?: I could not possibly disagree with your article more.Open worlds,while I agree they need more "activities" in them, allow a level of immersion that the game industry has never come close to before.Oblivion, Fallout 3,GTA 4,etc.. all had their problems but I would never want to go back to some linear game progression to showcase what are ,99% of the time, boring,cliched,amateurish stories and a long chain of mini-games.I actually liked taking the cab in GTA4.It gave me a sense of the city,a feeling that I was a real character in a real space.I`ve been gaming since the 2600 and since Ultima 3 on the PC,and I just feel there is no going back from open worlds.I cant wait to explore more. i have put close to 200 hours into GTA4. it is amazing. just TRY and go back to an older GTA, san andreas for example. great in its day, now feels like a cheap saints row game.
IV has bags of class and the realistic physics were hard to come to terms with but they were the right way forward. again driving cars in older GTAs is now a joke.
IV is such a deeper game that it takes a lot to get used to it, to get involved. most of the moaners havent even completed IV, its deemed cool to bash it. possibly because of the perfect 10/10 scores lavished on it from all angles. only idiots let hype wreck a game for themselves. this is no doubt a 10/10 game. certainly not perfect, but nothing is.
shame on this writer for jumping on the bandwagon!!!
if this isnt progress, what is?! walking down a narrow corridor? bumping into a chevron? walking into an invisible wall?!! I HATED saints row 2 for every reason the author described. Its was so cheap and tacky.
I hated those mandatory mini games.
I hated the story, (Wich is particularly poor)
And i couldn't empathise with any of the characters.
Modern games should be about immersion and narrative, if they want to take on the likes of movies and TV.
Saints row 2 is one of only two games ive traded in recently, the other being Mercenaries 2. THQ should stop making games, their crap at it. I agree with the article.
Funnily enough, I enjoy linear games a lot more than I do open-world. Far Cry was more entertaining than Far Cry 2; I enjoyed Spider-man more than Spider-man 3; The Half Life games were brilliant and I still prefer Super Mario Bros to most modern games.
However, I don't agree that you can't have a fun open world game. It just needs to be done right. My god you (author) must need spoon feeding if you can't entertain yourself in gta4's work of art... you really must have a stunted imagination. I read people complaining that it's too serious with disbelief. I am so happy that rockstar didn't pander to the braindead twitching teens (and you, obviously).
Plus, I am sure that GTA4 will be throwing up alot of surprises - dripping both new characters, stories, and weapons, vehicles etc into Liberty City via dlc (as they did with Lost and Damned)... which suits me fine, and anyone else with even a dot of imagination. I find this op-ed piece cogent and quite insightful. I also agree overall with the message it imparts: Interesting/fun gameplay trumphs massive worlds. I like both and I desire both, yet while I am impressed with, and love, the size and scale of games such as "Oblivion" and "FO3", I would rate a game such as "Vampire: Bloodlines" much higher on the enjoyment scale because it had a superior story and provided enough locations that were semi-open to impart a feeling of being in a much larger, breathing world (and the same goes for "Deus Ex" which although an "oldie" now is fondly remembered as one of my top games ever - that said, I doubt time has been kind to it). While I wouldn't mind it being even bigger and more open I will take an engrossing and mature plot over an open-ended world any day. Precisely. GTA 4 was garbage; it was buggy, the supposed 'realistic' physics were absolutely flawed, the main story wasn't much good beyond the halfway point, the characters were unexciting (Brucie was the only character I actually gave a damn about.) the cars were horribly slow; it wasn't the game it was hyped up to be, and it certainly has taught me not to buy into hype. That said, I don't think it's the crime of open world gaming itself, it's simple laziness from the designers. Saints Row works because you can go crazy and use it as a form of escapism- what's escapist about going for virtual drinks and looking at 'AMERICAN TEE-TEESS!!' with your snivelling cousin?
Yeah, I thought that was the answer. If you think he's wrong just ask yourself this: Why has the wii done so well this gen? wooblah IT'S CALLED DEVIL'S ADVOCATE FOR A REASON.
As in, argue on behalf of an unpopular or contrarian opinion.
I can't believe some people still don't get this.
The most interesting comments are those which agree - at least in parts. The whole point of articles like this is to make you rethink certain previously-held biases - so if Steve's achieved this in just a few people, he's done a good job. R* are artists and whilst the first GTA's and those that followed in the series were fun and almost gimmicky (yet still briliant) R* themselves have matured and grown up, they have also probably watched a lot of programmes like The Wire & The Sopranos and movies of a similiar ilk.
Dont get me wrong, It is fun to run around an Open World Game causing havoc and mayhem when your 14/15/16 and even now Im over 30 I can enjoy a bit of mayhem in GTA but I want more than that, I want to be enthralled and entertained and R* have delivered, and them some!
I cant actually believe the stick that GTA IV has recieved, for me it is the standout title this generation and I cant wait to see what R* have lined up for Episode 2 and of course GTA V. I sort of agree in essence. With the last gen GTAs I liked the open world but felt that they hadn't really made much of a game to go with it. The shooting and driving just weren't done with any sort of flair. However as the open world thing bedded in with Rockstar they've got better at filling a world with more of a game.
I argue that GTA4 was advanced in the areas I wanted it to. The driving, after you get used to it is satisfying in itself, just tearing around in a ferrari like vehicle was exhilirating. The shooting and cover system did a lot to improve the combat for me.
The problem with a lot of open world games is what the author of this article says is that they don't have the great game to put to it. It would be like a linear game having great, immersive level design but it would be still be rubbish if the actual gameplay mechanics were crap.
For me, the worst open world game is gen is Assassin's Creed. So much love had gone into the story and making the world tangible that they hadn't really thought about how to make the game fun. They filled it with repetitive tasks and flag searching which every open world game seems to cram in to make you explore every nook and cranny.
Saints Row 2 and GTA4 i feel can each exist together, GTA went down the serious road and tried to create a tangible world but for me it was still fun because there was enough of a game in there. Saints Row 2 was a sandbox and I got enjoyment out of that. It was ridiculously buggy though.
So in summary, I would not say open world is the 'stumble backwards' suggested here. You've just got to remember that it is a game. You'd probably be surprised actually. I've recently played through it again after a gap of almost a decade and if you ignore the understandable poor graphical fidelity (it was never that great graphically back in 2000) it still plays superbly. I'd forgotten just about everything, even the plot twists and I'm delighted I gave it another go.
Back on topic - the way I play games there is room for open world and traditional levels. Two of my favourite games this generation with massive open worlds, Oblivion and Fallout 3 could not be done any other way. Two other games, Mario Galaxy and Uncharted are perfect for the "level" model.
As for GTA IV I must admit that although I thought technically it was superb, ultimately it was like every other GTA where a quarter through the game all I was playing it for was to move the story along; I wasn't particularly enjoying it. That's just me though, it's a problem I've had with every GTA. I can fully understand why other gamers love them. A lack of things to do in an open world is only a problem for those with a lack of imagination to find them. A few examples if I may.
1.Fallout 3; Put all items in the cupboard of your house, Fast traval to a corner of the map (north eastern corner recommended) and try to get back alive.
2.Far Cry 2; Go gazelle hunting, go after the safehouses even though you dont really need to on pc, try taking out a guardhouse without being seen, do a mission with only the couple of shots the rpg will allow.
3.Oblivion; Role Play, walk everywhere, or take a horse, arrange your house with nice things, steal for the sake of stealing.
4.GTA4; (My computer isnt good enough to play this one but in previous versions) Steal the best car you can find, go onto the pavement, run down a whole load of people, see how long you can avoid the police.
There is fun and exitment everywhere in open world games and the people who cant enjoy them are the ones who demand being spoonfed enjoyment. Take a hint from the real world for once in your sad lives and remember that there is always something else to do but you have to be willing to find it. Fair enough, I agree. But what about crackdown, or the upcoming prototype? Just cause 2? I think these are what you want out of an open world. Crackdown and Just Cause were two great examples of making it fun just to travel and scale the environment. If you nail that then you're halfway there.
Just Cause 2 looks really good just for that fact and Prototype looks like it will give you a really powerful character and just let you wreak havoc. Like a more angst ridden Crackdown. Substitute Far Cry 2 for GTA4 in this article and you may have a point. Far Cry 2 is an open-world game done wrong, masses of kilometres to travel, and yet nuthin' to do. GTA4 was just different, people didn't seem to know what to make of it in the beginning, and so the slander flew.
I'll take a nice slice of both open-world and tightly packed linear, thanks. personally the phrase 'open world' or 'free roaming' instantly turns me off a game.
I have enough of that in every day life. I may be a gaming simpleton.... but i miss the good of days of 'go here.... and then do that'.
Linear FTW.
Whats wrong with giving me a gun - pointing me in the right direction and telling me to shoot everything between point a and point b? GTA4 was too realistic to be appealing to every body, that is why it failed. San Andreas was not realistic and was enjyoyable to the vast majority of people who bought it. Now if Rockstar are smart they will simply go back and make the next GTA like San Andreas.
Otherwise many people including me will simply not purchase it. Good article....seems some GTA and R* fanboys miss the point of it.
Crackdown is an excellent example of it done right.
I think what SR2 is trying to emulate and GTA4 doesn't is Halo's gameplay mantra of action every 30 seconds or so to keep the player engaged. Am I the only one who finds these suggestions deeply uninspiring?
The problem is that it seems utterly pointless, great for children, obsessives and potheads, but for real people it's just froth and nonsense.
In the end it has to be variety. I would prefer a great story with options and meaningful decisions, or even just a great adventure story. Others may well prefer doing a load of rubbish and collecting a load of cack for no reason, World of Warcraft style, innit? I would rather make my story in Civ IV, than in some "city" where nothing you do has any consequence specifically so that can you do whatever want to do.
What's the point of doing anything in a nihilistic game-world where nothing matters? while it is each to there own, i am currently on a computer games design course, on the whole course agrees GTA 4 is....well...boring. Yes it is ACCOMPLISHED in design. But sometiems people need to elt go of the "games as films" thing for the sake of actually having fun. I personally prefer linear games as they have a story a purpose and i feel i am enjoying what the developer set out for me to do. this may be becaus ei compare games and books more than games and films, which i honestly think will NEVER be in the same legue.
Saints Row 2 was more fun to be honest...but still rubbish. Half of GTA IV is brilliant and half of SR 2 is brilliant. Put together they would make one great game.
From GTA IV...Graphics/Sound, character physics & story/missions.
From SR 2...Driving physics, side missions/activities, content (car, gang and pad customization).
It would be foolish to think they could pull the ultimate game out of a hat so I'm happy that they will both improve the titles and feed of each other's breakthroughs and failures. | 
