![]() ![]() Now this is a very obvious textbook example of how AAA open worlds can go wrong, but the more telling part is how it end up having absolutely none of the qualities that its spiritual predecessor had. The series evolved into this mismash of AAA design trends, not only disregarding its PoP roots but also the whole thing about trying to be an assassin. Even the “tombs” and gameplay improvements in 2 didn’t do enough to mitigate this. The platforming was now fully automated and reducted to the press of a button. AC looked cool on paper, but in terms of gameplay it simply lacked any of the game design and player agency found in PoP. PoP was a linear but great action/platformer/adventure. Remember when it was announced, it was made by the Prince of Persia team, it was supposed to be a PoP spinoff. There is one case of another action-adventure series though that perfectly illustrates my problem with open world in terms of game design. ![]() A lot of them are in totally different genres compared to Zelda. Now I haven’t played every single 3D open-ish game out there that came out since then so I can’t elaborate about all of them. Both left a mark on the imaginations of many, both have influenced many games. Good level design, verticality, action button, z-targeting, interactivity with the world, you name it. OOT obviously needs no introduction, it basically did everything right in the first try. Therefore, the way players engaged with the game was totally different from past Marios, in a way it was one of the first games that ignited this itch for exploration and freedom in games. So let’s look at Mario 64 right, it was a revelation not only for 3D games in general but also in the way that even though it wasn’t a totally open game, it wasn’t a level select screen anymore. Here’s another perspective on why I think the current state of open worlds is a problem and why my opinion doesn’t really conflict with people that love BOTW over other games or whatnot, this really has nothing to do with my point. I know I sound serious and everything, I know a lot of people were fine with how the game turned out but I’m talking about the bigger picture here. We’re all human anyway, what’s the point about pointing out what’s objective or not, there’s nothing to discuss there Subjective just means that it’s about human perception, that’s why it never made sense to use the term on the Internet when arguing about stuff like videogames and movies. Sure you could say that it wasn’t one for you because the game was difficult enough in your opinion, but you still had all kinds of fallacies to make it sound like it wasn’t a big deal at all when it’s a legit design issue. It was pretty bad when that other user got dogpiled for pointing out how pausing to heal was a design issue. Click to expand.Design is general is subjective, this doesn’t mean that you can disregard someone else’s argument simply because “it’s not objective, it’s a matter of opinion”. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |