Are Games Getting Too Big?

So far, 2015 has already been an extraordinary year for gaming, with a number of eagerly awaited titles hitting the shelves and the current generation of consoles finally hitting their stride. However, if there has been one trend this year, it has been for increasingly large games that can take half a lifetime to complete, especially when trying to experience everything there is to see in the game.

[wraith4912]

No

[DarthZoolu]

You are correct.

[Timesplitter14]

There was an ad floating around N4G not too long ago saying "Do you suffer from open world sickness?" and I think I have exactly that.

I recently bought Witcher 3 and GTA5 which are excellent games but I've barely even played them. I feel almost exhausted as soon as I launch the game. It's like there's too much stuff to do and not enough direction in the gameplay. There's also something about playing in an immense world all by yourself in single player that I find kinda depressing.

More and more I am looking for games that have a very focused and interesting design instead of just trying to let you do 'everything'

[ShellB]

Spot on man. Spot on.

[Edito]

Yes, spot on...

Im huge fan of MGS, i played every single release but this one The Phantom Pain it's so huge that i feel exhausted before even start playing and i cant get into the plot because of the distractions i always preferred games with a more focused narrative...

[TheFirstClassic]

We have reached a point where the size of the world is more important than what's in it. What good is a massive world if it's empty and all the locations feel copied and pasted from each other?

I feel like Morrowind did it best. Smaller world but really dense. Then again, I'm using the graphics overhaul. That probably helps.

[Ezz2013]

***We have reached a point where the size of the world is more important than what's in it.***

Soo much this
It bother me soo much that gamers still think that bigger means better in open world games.

[JasonKCK]

That one word answers everything :)

[SaveFerris]

Having a large open world to explore is only good if it is filled with interesting things to see and do.

[Ezz2013]

Why no one told Bethesda about this when they were making Skyrim ?!

I was bored to tears playing Skyrim
The side quests are not fun and too many places and caves the look the same inside and outside
being too big hurt it more than helping it.

@unholy_one

Why?!
just because i don't like Skyrim....doesn't mean that i don't like open world games
I loved Fallout 3/NV,RDR,Dragon Dogma (Which manage to do everything right from story to gameplay to music for open world game) etc among tons of open world games i played
altough i have problems with Witcher 3 gameplay
it still manage to have great side missions
In fact i think it have the best sidde missions in any open world game.

[UnHoly_One]

If you couldn't find anything interesting to see or do in Skyrim then I think you should probably be playing another genre of game.

[TheFirstClassic]

Skyrim was pretty bland compared to Oblivion and Morrowind imo, boring side quests and characters. Still, it was a really fun game with mods.

[Aloy-Boyfriend]

This year I think has more open world games than previous ones, and they are coming shortly one after another, which makes it difficult to complete them 100% before the next due to all the grind.

I had to give up on MGSV to to finish my 1st playthrough of Witcher 3 and then start a 2nd playthrough to complete it 100% percent before Fallout 4. I just made it to Velen and I still haven't scratched the surface, and there's Fallout 4 coming in 3 days. After that comes Just Cause 3... It's really overwhelming

At this rate we will have a open world saturation. Not even funny considering most all open world games are repetitive and tiring

[skydragoonityx]

With the available tech now it should get bigger, but like @saveferris said its better if its filled with activities

[Hoffmann]

Yes. I miss the times of short games like Final Fantasy VII.

[timmyp53]

Yeah 40-60 hour games are like the sweet spot for me. When it gets to 60-100. I just tend to avoid them unless I'm a big fan or something.

[Hoffmann]

Yup. Some hundred hours are hardcore, put maybe 200h into Borderlands 2 and a game like Dynasty Warriors but 50 hours are just perfect per single player game

[Jayszen]

No. We need more games that are longer with more content and a variety of things to do. I like games like Fallout, Dragon Age, and Far Cry for that reason. There used to be a time when even shooter campaigns used to last longer than just 5 or 6 hours. Call of Duty 1 and 2 are perfect examples and strategy games like Command & Conquer, Starcraft and Total Annihilation took ages to complete as did games like Civilization and Age of Empires. They were immersive, fun, wonderful value for money, and totally took over your spare time.

[Perjoss]

ignore comment, I should have read the words first :P

[Bobafret]

Kind of wish they could be smaller file size wise,my 2tb external is nearly half full. Other than that, as long as it's not a big, empty wasteland like RDR I am cool with long games.

[TwoForce]

If the game is too big with interesting thing to do, then no.

[StormLegend]

Yes! I'm getting tired of these open world games.

[DeToX420]

All of you people complaining go play COD or something done ruin it for us.
The answer is no.

[Glymner]

Only thing getting too big, is the pile of articles like these.

[Youngindy21]

Yes. They are getting too big and too long. Not every game needs to be open-world. Half the time all that consists of is wasting 10 mins traveling from point A to point B to start a mission and then to point C to finish it. Boring. Some games do open-world perfectly like GTA, Arkham Knight, Witcher 3 etc. While others like Far Cry get boring after a while. Most of the time these games are filled with meaningless side quests and collectibles to make it seem like the game has a lot of value. I for one don't mind a linear game if it is fun.

[kenwonobi]

Oblivion to me is the one who has gotten it the most right. Very interesting caves, dungeons, castles, demon alternative worlds.

[Roccetarius]

People have pretty much said what needs to be said, but yes. Developers are making larger worlds, but what's in it is sorely lacking.

Witcher 3 and MGS5 both suffered from open world sickness, because the game wasn't nearly as focused like previous entries. it was all about making a world larger than something before it, and in this case the former was specifically targeting Skyrim.

Well, they got their mainstream status (CDPR) but they also lost fans in the process.

PS: If they do the same mistake with Cyberpunk 2077, then they learned nothing from Witcher 3.

[SlightlyRetarted]

Yeah they are. Games like Batman: Arkham Knight and MGS5 are good examples that have huge open-worlds just for the sake of having huge open-worlds. Both of them have zero content to justify the size. In MGS5 it's just ridiculous that you unlock 3 side ops, which are placed opposite ends of the map and last 5 minutes. With horrible fast travel system that game has, that usually means you running 10 minutes in bare bones map that has zero content to get to the next side-op.

Same goes with the GTAV. North of the map is absolutely useless with next to zero content. Only games where large maps are justified are RPG's like Witcher 3 where there are actual NPC's that interact, quests and loot all around.

Fallout 4's been getting some flak because it doesen't have a ridiculously large map compared to previous open-world games. If it has content to match the map size it's perfectly fine.
If this trend goes on, how long until we are playing games that are huge in size. But content is lacking and you end up running 30 min from objective to objective.

What i'm trying to say is. Let the amount of QUALITY content to set the size of your open-world. IF your game even needs to be an open-world game. Not like Far Cry, GTAV, MGS5, Batman: AK.

[bozdo]

Is your brain getting too small?

[DigitalRaptor]

In some ways.

We are at the point where certain people have a mentality of thinking that games like Shenmue III need to have a game-world ambition of games like GTA or Sleeping Dogs to satisfy its fanbase. Maybe those people were just being disingenuous, probably, but if a huge game world suits the experience then I have no issues. I would prefer if games like inFamous had more vibrant worlds going forward though. You have to justify an open word.

[Gatsu]

I still haven't finished Witcher 3, because I always try to do everything and it has so much. So I would say yes, they kinda are.

I prefer games that are a bit shorter which I can finish easier multiple times. But RPGs are usually quite long.

[ShaunCameron]

No. Games were bound to get bigger anyway with time and technological advancements. Even the inherently shortest of games.

[DittoHefner]

No, but too many are doing open-world unnecessarily which could give this impression. MGSV didn't need, nor did it benefit at all from, an open-world, for example.

[Solid_Penguin-64]

No but I am ;)