PixlBit

Oh man, Jim Sterling vid very fun. 

Like to see a lot of variety in free-to-play games out there. Reminds me I don't need to spend anything on games if I really want to. I should want to. 

The F2P games I listed are not lame vaporware. They are solid games that happen to be free. And yes, there is a variety of games. Team shooter, Card & Strategy, Tactical, Team Battle Moba, Solo Action. They are solid games that should be demoed at least. There is also a F2P anime-style Hearthstone called Shadowverse.

I grabbed a bunch of ftp games on XBO a few weeks ago to try. Some of them were really good like Gems of War by the makers of Puzzle Quest. I should stop buying games. 

I've been playing these F2P games all year.

Wow, so I imagine you're still in the first area of FFXV. I'm enjoying just driving around listening to tunes as well. Was considering going back to the game after 100% the achievements just to do that.

Jim Sterling's great, but I don't think I personally agree with him here. I find I like my sandboxes with less things to do. Like FFXV, Mirror's Edge Catalyst and the Division (I think all three games have beautiful looking open worlds as well). Interestingly, Jim doesn't mention FFXV in the video, so I don't know his stance on that one here or if it presents a possible hole in his argument. Without the open-world in FFXV, I think the game would be a largely pointless, linear single-player campaign.

I find Witcher 3 and Elder Scrolls overwhelming in terms of open world and I don't want to play those for that reason. I do agree with the part on overloaded icons on maps in games like Assassin's Creed. That said, No Man's Sky in particular sounds, bland, big, empty, and boring.

With Witcher III, I'm fine with the open world stuff; what overwhelms me is the inventory. I'm fine with upgrade systems, but there's just so much to take into account. Every time I hit pause it's like opening an encyclopedia.

I thought they fixed inventory with patches? I agree, the inventory was a mess, at launch at least. It was annoying in Dragon Age Inquisition as well. Also, Witcher 3 had a lot of interesting story content and sidequests, which most triple A games dont focus on much.

I don't find it hard to navigate or think it needs a patch, there's just a lot in it. It's not a design flaw to me, just that as a gamer I prefer simpler upgrade systems a la Arkham games. I don't really have an interest in taking a potions class to figure out what's best to do with all the millions of plants I can somehow carry.

I haven't left the first main area of the game. I'm just exploring, fishing and doing a few side quests and hunts. 
My main issue with open worlds are length. I typically prefer the more linear, old school direction like The Last of Us or Uncharted. I think that Witcher 3 had wonderful sidequests and stories, as does Fallout, but turning everything into an open world like GTA and Assassins Creed is dumb. I think FF15s world is beautiful and scenic and fits with the theme of a road trip. There are interesting enough creatures living in their own habitat that it feels like a safari. Xenoblade Chronicles looks gorgeous as well, as does Witcher 3.

Anyhow, I think he Jim liked FFXV enough that it made him love the series again. Also, sandboxes are usually empty w/ no real direction, while open worlds allow the player to progress at their own pace. He kind of blurred the line between sandbox and open world. No Man's Sky is more of a sandbox. Assassins Creed is more open world.  

While I agree with most of that video, there is an argument to be made that those of us who enjoy linearity (me) can still technically get what we want in some of these games. I might do some side quests in ME Catalyst now, but I completely ignored them in favor of story levels for several hours straight. I usually consider myself done with a game once the story is over, open world or no and the open world aspect doesn't usually hinder that for me.

Having said that, I'm much more interested in side quests in something like GTA V or Witcher III that have their own stories than I am in collecting trinkets like the one he discusses. 

I agree. However, skipping the open world in FF15 at the beginning, which you can actually do in favor of following the story content would be missing the best part and whole point--the road trip. I think that some games have great open worlds to explore and poke around in, like FF15 or FF12, but then FF10 linearity is still great. Open world is good when it is good.

I like a balance between linearity and empty sandboxes. Right now I'm really enjoying FFXV, and I'm enjoying doing all the small stuff, chewing the scenery, and learning the battle system. It, and FF Type-0, are a huge relief compared to the rigid linearity of FFXIII. It's also for that reason I far prefer FFXII over FFX - FFXII isn't completely open world, but it's much more open than FFX. The second half of FFVI played as an open-world game as well, but you had distinct objectives like finding your friends, collecting weapons and magicite, and defeating the dragons.

No Man's Sky was a concept I'm really interested in, an open space exploration game, but they didn't have the resources to flesh it out. Back in the 1980s, I played a game called Starflight, which was an open-world space exploration game where you could explore planets, mine minerals, and capture life forms. It only recognized space in a flat X-Y plane due to the limitations of the time, but within that limitation it was impressive. But the developers also added a storyline with a conflict, as well as alien races to interact with, each with their own personality, and that's what made the difference there. They provided a big space to play in, but gave you stuff to do that actually meshed well with the universe they created. And in order to find the main storyline, you had to pick up on clues from alien communications and communication messages you found scattered on the planets. I'd hoped that No Man's Sky would scratch that itch using modern technology, but they relied entirely on procedural generation. A few scripted events and conflicts would have made a huge difference in that game.

I liked the openness about Type-0, 12 and Lighting Returns actually. The remakes for DS 3&4 were also more open world too if I recall. Actually the original FF games 1-6, even 7&8 let you roam around a bit more. 

I think my problem is that I haven't been exposed to an actual good open world game that clicked with me. I've really only enjoyed Xenoblade and FF15, but not so interested in Assassins Creed or GTA, although I hear GTA has good sidequests which does interest me. 

No Man's Sky is exactly the type of game that I would hate. Procedurally generated content is the worst. Bloodborne added horribly boring procedural dungeons that just recycled enemies. 

That game with added storyline you mentioned reminds me of souls games. A lot of the story and lore are put together by item descriptions and NPCs, as well as an active online community that shares theories like a giant jigsaw.

I like FF15 and the Xenoblade games myself. I also like the later Fallout games, which do at times suffer from empty sandbox syndrome, but the post-nuclear settings are interesting and there are fun bits to do.

I actually got bored with GTA once the novelty of causing havoc with pedestrians wore off. And even with that, you couldn't cause any lasting chaos. As soon as you took your car to a Pay-n-Spray, law enforcement went away and things returned to normal like nothing ever happened. Even if you went on a rampage with a tank. The day-to-day havoc of GTA is segregated from the story missions even in the more recent games. I had the same issue with Red Dead Redemption.

Ubisoft is just kind of a crappy, overrated developer. They do make an occasional good/okay game, but I never understood how they went from obscurity to being a major third party other than getting lucky with Prince of Persia and Splinter Cell back on PS2. They were a decidedly lower tier publisher/developer up until then. Most of what made them successful was scripted set pieces, so that's a lot of why their efforts at open world are falling so flat.

I think, in the video, Jim brings up that the president or whoever is running Ubisoft mandated open world design for all their games, which is why Division is open world shooter when it didn't need to be, or at least didn't benefit from running around massive environments shooting the same enemies all the time. I only really liked AC that took place in Rome, and the rest were bleh. I liked the story in Liberation. Ubisoft is doing the same open world thing with Ghost Recon for some reason?

I'm finding it hard to stick with GTAV. The missions are hermetically sealed from the rest of the world. Not to mention you are lead by the nose through each step of the missions. Freeform approaches are not really possible. There are no incentives to even cause havoc on the streets anymore; no Ramapge missions, turf wars (San Andreas), rival factions shooting at you when you pass through their neck of the woods (GTA3). Rockstar is hell bent on walking you through their story, not letting you create your own.

Did you ever play any of the Elite games on PC? Open world, 3D space exploration going back to the 80s/90s. It's why I never saw NMS as a big deal.

No Elite for me. The only open world space game I enjoyed were Rebel Galaxy, and Star Trek Online, but they both had missions and Star Trek had nostalgia and familiarity to TV shows. 

I do not like open world design the way its done now. You're playing errand boy, looking for the icon on the map and doing the missions exactly how the developer wants you to.  I loathe seeing icons all over the map. It looks cheap, and everyone just does it because other games did it. Very little individuality in design. Part of the appeal of open world games in the early days was stumbling upon something you didn't expect or predict.

 And I don't think developers should fill out open worlds just to fill them out. That's what leads to Ubisoft style design. They decide on the size of the world first and then attempt ot fill in the borders. Better to decide on  your content first and design your environment around it.

 Also, think there is an assumption that people are operating from which is a false premise, that being that an open world is always also a sandbox and that a sandbox is always open world. A sandbox is defined by the sand, not the size of the box. If you can't manipulate and create with the content within the world, it's not a sandbox. Garry's MOd is the ultimate sandbox, yet is not set within an open world.

I agree. I think the way Ubisoft does their open worlds is annoying.

There are parts of FF15 open world which are empty, but the unpredictability of what monster you might find by exploring freely, seeing the new interpretations of classic FF creatures makes it worth poking around. There are also hidden dungeons that you find on your own without sidequests or NPC guides, you just stumble into them, and sometimes there are really tough bosses, or important treasure. Either way, worth exploring. FF15 does open world right. It feels like older games like Zelda or Metroid or FF games that just let you wander around.  

I also love taking screenshots of the creatures like Pokemon Snap. I also did this in Xenoblade.