Forbes: " The Phantom Pain is very much an RPG in a similar vein as The Witcher 3, even though it isn’t labeled as such. And here is where we come to the flaw."
No just No.
Please explain why no? I actually agree with the article.
I think he kind of swung and missed at the main issue: making an open world captivating. It can work well, but it has to reward the user for exploring. Games like Skyrim achieve that...you can stumble upon massive dungeons/structures and quest lines just wandering between point A and B. Stuff that peaks your curiosity, practically begging you to check it out, see if you can get inside, etc...which could then send you on a quest to the far corners of the game world. You never know what you might discover. The Witcher 3 doesn't have near the variety. "Oh look, another little town...oh look, another burnt out town...oh look, another bunch of deserters". There's stuff to see, but not nearly as much thought went into it. And the quests often send you on epic journeys...150 feet down the road. To make matters worse, the game can label just about every side quest on the map without even visiting the spot. Apparently Geralt has Google Maps. In short, exploration in Witcher 3 feels like an afterthought, and as a result a major benefit of an open world is crippled. Sure, the atmosphere is awesome, but the sense of adventure and exploration is severely lacking compared to what it could have been. It's like they spent all their time on this awesome map, but didn't bother putting anything interesting between those locations required for the main plot. The only reason to even bother going off the main plot is to build up your character for the main quests. Those side quests aren't particularly interesting. Witcher 3 is a good game but it feels incomplete and nerfed.
I disagree Frosty. Skyrims quests and discoverable content was no more diverse then The Witcher 3. I think this is a case of nostalgia clouding the truth. MGS5 is another story. I don't think it is fair to compair it to these other open world games. The main focus in MGS5 is clearly gameplay.
Metal gear solid 5 has the same rocks copy and pasted all over the world... and if you don't believe me i'll make a video showing it... it's really sad actually... nothing says bland like copy and paste.
@Sono421 It does. No one says it doesn't. But, that's why you aren't made to run across the entire map unless you make yourself. It's aim is to be realistic as well as tied into its science fiction. It's not going to throw out a traveler getting stuck in your path to initiate some sort of big side quest. I think Kojima and team should definitely create a new game or franchise with many of these aspects in mind however and have it more fantasy oriented. Because, it's awesome stuff but not going to fit into this world. I understand you want to run into cool things out in the open world. Well, this game aims to keep part of your attention into your iDroid. In GZ I thought it was cool but odd to use. Now that I see it scan documents, play music, track markers on a map, and let me control my developments and base facilities and soldiers it feels so much more than welcome. I will be in a sniping spot and pull it up to adjust some things and make sure I have soldiers deployed and then I proceed to mark enemies and find out how to infiltrate my next mission and which enemies to capture. The only thing that bugs me in this game is the skulls. I have killed all but the ones I fought on missions with higher artificial difficulty(higher difficulty then the default setting). Well, I did complete the mission but I found another method to ridding of them. For some I do fully understand how tedious it can get in this game. I normally would need to take a break from it and come back to finish it but from all the story I've taken in thus far from previous titles and what not I keep trying to pin point what is going to happen next that it keeps me tied into it.
@Frosty, that is highly false. Witcher 3 had a great set of sidequests, and minimal fetch quests, which Skyrim had a lot of btw.
I can understand how some people don't enjoy taking in vast expanses of scenery as they explore and see it as "boring". But I don't understand how they can't realise that some people like exploring these huge worlds down to every last rock and tree, this "flaw" is anything but. I think I had an argument here with someone once because there were "too many trees, not enough buildings to explore" in some game (possibly witcher?). Pfft, humans and their buildings. I think the writer is just expressing his preference for linear games over open world and confusing it with fact or flaw. Both have pros and cons, I prefer linear myself but mainly because open world is rarely done right, then again linear is rarely done right too.
If there's nothing compelling in all those rocks and trees, or what you find becomes repetitive, few people will enjoy it for very long.
There's time and effort put in to those rocks and trees, there's craftsmanship to be admired, I mean have you ever even tried to draw a tree? Trees are hard man!
You should try reading the article. It is actually very well written. It discusses four types of game designs we know and gives examples of each. Traditional, linear level design or obstacle course design; Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze Open-world level design which favors the open field over the obstacle course; The Witcher 3 Linear level-design that gives players multiple paths through an obstacle course; Dishonored Open-world level design that favors myriad obstacle courses over the open field; Dark Souls 1 It's actually a very good read and he argues his point of view well. Give it a full read.
But he missed a major one: Open-world level design which favors the open world over the obstacle course, but intersperses **elaborate** obstacle courses throughout said world for the player to discover (and which aren't part of the main quest). E.G. Skyrim/Fallout 3.
I think the article suffers from a very big flaw in that it's set up in the headline as a statement of objective fact rather than a well worded opinion.
Lol none of this is fact. I didn't need to read this to know what the map is like in the witcher. I played it, and enjoyed it. There aren't really any points made, just opinions
Ya this is stupid. The witcher was one of the best games I've ever played and the environments were great. You could also fast travel easily.
@Grap I agree with you completely.
I get where he's coming from but the open world in MGS 5 is very different from that of Witcher, Skyrim and RPG's. It's more like a lot of different levels seemlessly integrated within an open space. And the graphics are better than any other open world game. Kojima should get more praise for the technical aspect of MGS 5, and the FOX engine. It's a graphical masterpiece. From textures to lighting and particle effects it floors the opposition. And to boot it all runs at 60 fps.
The moonlight on rocky cliff faces in Afghanistan is staggering.
agreed,.. there are aspects of this engine's lightning that just blow my mind
It's lightning is definitely amazing but the textures could be better. Overall I was more impressed with The Witchers or Arkham Knights graphics but I think MGS5's gameplay and AI is more impressive and that's what matters to me.
I actually think that taken as a whole MGSV is the most graphically impressive game I have seen. There is something so tangible about it. Sure, looking up close some of the textures are not excellent, but the whole is remarkable. The sense of place reminds me of RDR. With The Witcher 3 and this my jaw has been suitably dropped this year. TW3 made my jaw drop twice as I saw it both on a PS4 (very beautiful)) and a powerful PC (even more beautiful). They are both gorgeous. They are also a testament to how intelligent lighting can change the look and feel of a game. They are also both excellent games. I played TW3 for about 300 hours and I never wanted it to end. I am getting the same feeling with MGSV. And Fallout is still to come this year. And Just Cause 3. Arkham Knight is pretty as well, but I don't feel it has the scope of either of these two games. If you stand atop a building in Arkham Knight you can basically see the entire map. Don't get me wrong though, it is still a gorgeous game. I also thought Dying Light was rather pretty, although not on the same level as the aforementioned games. I guess what I am trying to say is that I have enjoyed this year in gaming.
"And the graphics are better than any other open world game." Absolutely love the game, but I disagree with that.
lol if you're gonna state that you disagree you might as well name the game that you think looks better.
The Witcher 3 is by far the best looking open world game.
Graphics aren't really that impressive, textures and models are basically identical to the last-gen versions. This of course is the price you pay for 60fps and I'd say the tradeoff is worthwhile. But on PS4, I'd say The Witcher 3, Infamous: Second Son, and even GTA V look better. Of course, all of these games run at 30fps (or lower)
um why are people disagreeing with this? MGSV looks good but it isn't the best looking open world game at all... Witcher 3, Batman AK and GTA all look better and all have better open worlds.
"if you're gonna state that you disagree you might as well name the game that you think looks better." I don't see why. Either you think MGS5 is the best looking open world game or you don't, but TW3, Arkham Knight, and GTA5 all look better imo. I think MGS5 looks great, don't get me wrong, I just don't think it looks the best. I'm still blown away by the whole experience.
The only thign that bugs me about the game (on console at least, probably not present on pc) is the LOD on shadows, there is no shadows in the distance and the LOD is very small, if you look five/ten feet in front of your player character you'll notice them fade in. Other than that, the lighting is incredible and 100% dynamic *drool*. What really impresses me is how good the game looks despite its framework been built with 360/ps3 in mind. The Fox Engine is one flexible mother...
IMO the best looking open world 3rd person game is Infamous SS. Witcher 3 has nice areas but the characters look a bit ugly, MSG5 looks really good but a bit blocky at some points.
Why are Forbes articles still being posted? Quality, not quantity!
Did you actually read the article? He actually presents a very good case against open world structure and how it's mostly filler wastelands until you get to the real obstacle course. Then his comparison to Bloodborne/Dark Souls style is spot on. It is open world but every section is an obstacle course. No wasteland thanks to its more stricker design.
I love the phantom pain, but I'm not a fan of the open world direction games have been going. I would take the design of witcher 2 over 3 personally.
@cpayne93 the World design of the Witcher 2 is disgusting and is the smallest in the series. Thank god CDProjektRED didn't go back to it
Let me rephrase that, I meant to say witcher 1. Level design in open world games gets so bland and repetitive.
It's simply paragraphs and paragraphs of nitpicking without actually making a point.
Is the flaw that Forbes needs more hits?
Why are they writing this crap over and over? The next Forbes article: The main problem with last nights dinner,- It Was Too Tasty And Nutritious!
I completely agree with Eric. Too much of the same thing.
I'm 10 houts in and still enjoying it. I like the replayability of the missions. Almost feels like goldeneye in the additional tasks you can do. If I wanted a game with just the story, I'd play the first MGS. it's been 17 or whatever years since I played it. Maybe that'll be next.
Every video game has repetition in it. Game developers make the core mechanics of the video game and then they build the different choices that you have. Whether that be different weapons, attachments for the weapons or ways that you can approach different scenarios. Single player linear games often give you your average starting out weapons and as you make your way through the game, give you different weapons, bring in new enemies to challenge the player, sometimes make the game harder to give the player a challenge and indulge them in an amazing story. It's a fine tune of balancing all of those aspects which makes a great story driven, linear video game. Multiplayer games starts gamers off with the same gear/equipment/characters. As you earn more experience by constantly killing other players or playing the objective. You get experience or get unlock tokens that gets you more gear to keep the experience fresh. Battlefield and COD are two prime examples. Then there is the open world games where they set the stage in the beginning and let you go into a massive open world. Using MGS V The Phantom Pain for an example. Almost each mission is an extraction or eliminate the target mission. With all that is given to you, how will you carry out the mission? You can use the dog, Quiet, the robot, a sniper rifle long range, go in guns blazing, mortar strikes, ect. There are so many ways to do different things but it's up to the gamer to diversify if they want to. If they play the same way until it gets stale when the developer has so many other options of how to do things. Is this really the developers fault or the gamers?
The side ops and the main ops in the game are ridiculously fucked up. Each solider is the same. Each interrogation is the same. Each base is almost a carbon-copy of another. Each mission has the same objective. Each prisoner is the same. Each tank-crew is the same. "Eliminate tank crew 5". Where is the rationale behind all this? None of it feels like it belongs in a MGS game. Not only does Sutherland suck, but BB is also mute during the game. I have to listen to tapes instead of the wonderful Codec conversations. Cutscenes are a far-cry from the beauty of the previous MGS games (I would watch the PS1 ones over this dreck any day) and this open-world design is dreadful. I want the linearity of MGS back where every scene was designed to AMAZE, the boss encounters were memorable, etc. \ MGS:PP, while a good stealth game demonstrates everything that is wrong with the game industry: its a bland, repetitive, cookie-cutter open-world game that literally robbed the series from the finale it deserved.
So let me get this straight - codec conversations are wonderful but tapes are bad? What is the difference ???
Yeah please explain the difference between codec conversations and cassettes. Is it that you miss how long and frequent they used to be? Or do you miss the little bobble heads talking? Because, minus those two things there's no major difference between the codec convos and the casettes, they serve the same purpose. The one advantage of casettes over codec is, I can listen to the cassettes while doing side ops, whereas with codec, i'd have to stop and listen and THEN do my side ops and I barely have enough time to play the game as is.
100% agree with the side ops and main missions. The game does not change or mix anything up as you go through it feels boring after a while, i'm 48% through and I'm at the point of giving up because the open world doesn't do anything to improve the game because it's just a third person shooter at it's core and all you seem to do on the game is save hostages. It does what it does well but it doesn't do anything really well or anything that innovates or changes up the open world formula.
" but it doesn't do anything really well or anything that innovates or changes up the open world formula." It never claimed it was going to, if that's what you were expecting then you are the catalyst of your own disappointment. If there's one thing that bugs me, it's people judging something for what it doesn't do. How's that quote go again? If you gauge a fish on its ability to climb a tree...
What's that, Fun?
Way too much fun to recommend. Save your money for games with less fun. Fun is killing the industry I tell ya!
Would've been awesome if you could actually do something other in these MASSIVE maps than just capturing NPCs for MB the whole time...
You are limited by your imagination when MGSV provides you with so many tools to do whatever you want.
Easy there pintheshadows, people don't take kindly to using your imagination round these parts. According to many rabid fanboys, making us use our imagination is just the developers being lazy and getting us to do all their work for them (I swear someone has said that very exact thing on here several times, I wish I was making that up :( )
what a load of BS.
Thanks for the tip.. Next time I play TPP I'll imagine I'm on my way to go ravage Katy Perry in the Afghan dessert.. GENIUS!
So many tools to do whatever I want? Ok I'll load up with grenade launchers and D-Walker instead of tranquilizers and just kill everyone. Oh wait, there's an S++ I need for my R&D team, and a A++ for my medical staff, and a S+ for my combat unit. Now I have to capture them all by CQC and kill the low levels while making sure not to hit my future staffers. Great way to mix it up! /s I mean, what do you do out there that is soooo different than the tranq fulton repeat?
Throw decoy. Confuse enemies. Line them up whilst they are confused. Box sled into all of them. Then use CQC combos to take them out. Or maybe launch a sleeping gas strike. Or just a bombardment. Or drop in with a gold tank and go on a rampage. Or do it in D-Walker with a gatling gun. Or use D-dog to stun or knife them. Or use Quiet with a tranq rifle. Or lob a smoke grenade and choke someone out whilst wearing NVG's. Or drop a bombardment out of a base so the guards are dragged away, sneak in and save hostages. I could go on. With the toybox MGSV gives you, it is only limited by your imagination.
The Witcher 3 - I agree, the game feels staggering at times. My sessions are not hours long sessions now, they are bite size, hour or 2 at the absolute most. I could run around Witcher for 30-45 minutes and if I wanted to play Gwent I barely made any progress with a side-story or main mission. MGS5 on the other hand is amazing, best game I’ve played since TLOU. I can work on my base, do a side op like hunt a bear or chase a zombie like guy around or find sheep, I can also play a mission and progress. Not to mention that when I take on a mission, I can literally tackle it in any manner I see fit. MGS5 is the best sandbox game I’ve ever played.
The article is right. I am sick and tired of open-world games. Until Dawn for instance was all crafted for story and it SHOWS. Imagine if that was an open-world games where you had to look for shit to do for the umpteenth time. The Order was also entirely based around linear objectives that were scripted to WOW you and not to elicit cries of desperation. Same goes for The Last of Us or similar games. Ditch this open-world bullshit for good and go back to the way things used to be. Don't give a shit about boring side-content and the endless monotony of collecting every damn thing.
I agree with everything you said…. however, open world games are great if you just wanna mess around and have a good time. They offer more bang for your buck because it's not like "Okay, I played the story and now there's no reason to play this again for a long time". At least in open world games you can be like "I don't feel like going to the next mission. I think I'm gonna go sight seeing or try to find an area I've never seen before." If it's a driving game, it's fun to drive around and take your car off jumps or see the crazy ways you can kill your character. I think there is room for open world games AND linear games, but I feel like right now we're being bombarded by mostly open world games lately. Seems like developers wanna make open worlds just because that's the popular thing now and it's easier to do on this more powerful hardware.
I agree with that. Perhaps its the deluge of open-world games and the absence of more linear experiences that is making me wistful for the past.
I agree with you as well, but I believe open world games keep going this way as pc gamers to utilize mods to make the games better, but to be fair, remember a time when you didn't need a mod to enjoy a game? The MGS series is one of the most prolific series on console, but this open world garbage is really just a waste. If it were linear it could've been twice as long with more badass cutscenes. However with time comes change and with that the next generation of development changes in gaming. For better or for worse :/
I think the trend is here to stay unfortunately. I guess all we can do is make the best of it. MGS is a great open-world stealth game, but my least favorite MGS to date. I never thought I would be doing 170 repetitive side-ops in my favourite linear masterpiece of a series...
@Dimasok just let this be a reminder the direction Konami is heading. Without Kojima eye for detail in mgs5, the world and gameplay would be as boring/reptitive as mad max. At least this story is still damn good.
Arkham Knight and Mgsv have fun open worlds.
It's called using your imagination, they give you a playground to create your own fun beyond the story. Open world games give so much more value than the one and done linear games where you know exactly what will happen the next time you play it.
but that's the problem isn't it, open world games nowadays aren't designed around a playground, they have that main mission,side mission, but you have to do the main missions to get more things, structure. You have to fight against what the game wants you to do to really enjoy them that's still fun, but imagine how great just cause 2 for instance would be if there were no missions, or story for that matter, and you simply started on the streets with nothing but a pistol, and you had to discover for yourself by playing around that you could get a grapple hook somewhere in that base, then you had to find ways to be powerful enough to get in there. That would be way more beneficial then the half-baked story we got.
There was a story in Just Cause 2? Hmmmm. I played the first couple of missions (because I had to), but as soon as the tutorial was over, I never played another mission. HAH! I just liked blowing crap up in that game and driving cars off cliffs, then parachuting down. I love the chaos aspect of that game, but I couldn't care less about the story.
that is because the story in Just cause 2 was utter crap.
i haven't played either of those games, but as for open-world games in general, I couldn't agree more, they often times feel more linear then actually linear games
I guess the guys at Forbes must not like CoD, Skyrim, NBA 2K, Mario games, Dying Light, Street Fighter..... Is it me or do all these titles I listed have repetitive elements in them? EVERY game has a core mechanic that you do over and over. All that open world side stuff isn't required, you could just do the main story. I've been doing just about every optional objective in Batman, MGS, and TW3. Idk, games are really fun!
The nature of MGSV's open world and Witcher's couldn't possibly be more different. Witcher is very open; you can go anywhere from any point. MGSV's open world doesn't even feel like it should be called an open world. It has large, open areas, but many of the missions funnel you into corridor-like areas that feel very much like MGS levels of yore, albeit on a bigger scale. I'm not making a judgement about either kind; they are different approaches to game design. Personally, I think MGS pulls this style off a little better (although Witcher definitely has some incredible areas), but that's just me. MGS puts such emphasis into the actual locations, and such a lack of emphasis on the negative space between them, that the negative space really feels like it's serving a design purpose—as breathing room between the clutch, intimately designed main levels. In Afghanistan alone, I can think of so many memorable locations. Slightly more so than in Africa, which felt just a tad samey at times. This article is wrong.
I know I'm in the minority but I can't agree more. I feel like open world games make the game much more shallow. I haven't found an open world game that I really like.