Top
30°

Talking Point: Are Bigger Open Worlds Really Better?

Push Square: "'Our game's open world is so groundbreakingly big that it'll take you an hour to travel from one side of it to the other.' Anyone that's followed the industry closely will have heard the prior quote before, whether it's paraded positively by a public relations person during a presentation, or typed out on an official channel like the PlayStation Blog. Developers often flaunt the size of their sandboxes like a badge of honour; it's the bullet point that makes their latest title worth buying. But is bigger really better?"

Read Full Story >>
pushsquare.com
The story is too old to be commented.
DarkOcelet998d ago (Edited 998d ago )

It really depends on the developer.

If it is Ubisoft then i know it will be boring and repetitive as hell after a few hours of gameplay and can be filled with bugs.

If it is Bethesda then it will be awesome but will definitely have hundreds of bugs that will be patched later but still an enjoyable experience.

If it is R* then it will be the most detailed open world game out there.

If it is Kojima\CD Projekt then it shall be the best open world game with a great gameplay and amazing story.

If it Bioware then it will most likely be deep in the story but the gameplay could use a bit more work.

Offcourse in the end open world is not always good and its better if it linear especially in a game where it want to tell a story or you will get lost in the sidequests then you will forget there was ever a story.