April 20th 2024.
As a fellow gamer, I can't help but feel worried about the current state of the video game industry. It seems like neither Microsoft nor Sony are making any effort to address the concerns of gamers like us. The rising costs and time constraints of modern games are restricting the variety of games being made, and it's frustrating.
But there is one thing that could potentially solve a lot of these issues: getting rid of open world games. While open world games have been around since the 80s, they have become increasingly popular in recent years. When you mention open world games, most people immediately think of Ubisoft's titles like Assassin's Creed and Far Cry. These games feature large, detailed worlds with countless side missions, collectibles, and map-filling towers to climb.
While these games were fun at first, they have now become a plague on the industry. Publishers have realized that open world games are a lucrative type of single-player game, as they offer players a lot of content and are often accompanied by DLC. As a result, open world games have begun to overshadow other types of single-player games, leading to bloated and padded games with too much content.
Just look at some recent titles like Gears 5, Halo Infinite, Mirror's Edge Catalyst, Metal Gear Solid 5, Mass Effect Andromeda, and even the highly anticipated Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth. None of these games needed to be open world, and the same can be said for many others. Open world design is often added in as a selling point and to avoid the challenges of level design.
The problem is that many single-player games feel the need to be open world, which is significantly more expensive and time-consuming compared to traditional level-based games. The amount of ground to cover and the need to fill it with content adds to the development time and costs, creating the current issue of games taking too long and costing too much.
Some people have suggested that publishers should go back to making AA games, but that's not a viable solution. Players have come to expect high-quality graphics and features, and going back to inferior graphics and systems is not something they would accept. However, if games were to stop being open world, it would instantly save a lot of money, and I believe very few players would complain.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that all open world games should be eliminated. The Legend of Zelda series has proven that open world design can be done right. However, it should be the exception rather than the rule. Just like how every game in the Xbox 360 era felt the need to include a multiplayer mode, it seems like publishers now feel the need to make every game open world, even when it doesn't add to the overall experience.
If game developers want to cut their budgets, they need to do it in a way that benefits the game. Removing bloat and padding and creating shorter, more focused games would be a positive change for everyone involved. It's time for the industry to re-evaluate the use of open world design and focus on creating quality games rather than just following a trend.
Do you agree with our reader, AgentRed? Would getting rid of open world games be a positive change for the industry? Share your thoughts in the comments below. And don't forget to follow us on Twitter and sign up for our newsletter to stay up-to-date with all the latest gaming news and releases.
[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
[Generative AI is experimental.]
