I want to end the open world meme with my own two hands. How do I go about achieving this?

Breath of the Wild is as boring as every other open world game for the exact same reasons.

But it has the Nintendo seal of approval so it's somehow better

An open world game in mega city 1 would be absolutely fantastic. Just make your judge be as bad or good as you want, who the fuck is even going to stop you?
They need to get on this shit ASAP.

>execute everyone who makes games i vaguely dislike because hyperbole is hilarious
Yeah, nah. Go play something else, retard.

Only if Rockstar made it with the same detail as rdr2 but a map that was ludicrously large. I should be able to explore new locations and lay down the law for 1000 hours.

Judge Dredd > Dredd

Don't touch my waifu.

Attached: 1560265772560.jpg (1357x960, 103K)

I don't know about that, they're too focused on realism these days, it would be a slog. I think volition could do a decent job of it with the proper budget, Judge Dredd was always about a super serious enforcer dealing with the silliest threats.
The setting is perfect because it would be all just one massive sprawling city with no rural areas to speak of.

Ah, the Yea Forums stupid retard contrarian defense force is here. Praise Zaddy!

Open world games are boring as fuck and your idea would be no different. You don't have the development resources to make a huge mega city fun to explore and not feel empty or copy-pasted.

>Open world games are boring as fuck
Generalisations and blanket statements are boring as fuck, mostly because they're always wrong.

You're incapable of naming an open world game that would not be better if the open world shit got taken out.

Perhaps driving games, but that's it.

if you don't like it, don't play it

Attached: 57d93814dd0895.jpg (750x500, 46K)

choke yourself out

It's poisoning our industry with this shit. Soon, there will be no option but to play open world games.

The joke is open world improved all of these games vastly.

You want to fix the Open World genre? Here's how you do it.

Use the formula from the early 2000s Open World games. Make the world as densely packed as possible whilst making it big. Don't just make it big for the sake of it. Fill it up as much as possible. Compare the San Andreas map to the GTAV Map. The San Andreas Map has roughly four cities with a few towns littered around and one military base and mountain. GTAV has only one city and two or four towns and a single military base and several fucking mountains. The big problem with the current open world games is the lack of content. MGSV almost had the right idea but most of the bases are empty and lacking in things to do. Make sure to include things the player can do, keep them entertained. KCD comes close, but unfortunately it's based on a real location that is actually quite spread open (look up KCD real map) and it's a more rural area, so as such places are more spread out there because that's how it actually looked, thankfully the devs made the towns filled with quite a ton of content, so every place you visit gives you new experiences and things to do. Combine that with a dense map and you'll end the open world meme.

That's how you make a good open world game. The perfect open world game.

it should be done in the correct way, not themepark rollercoaster style with Witcher sense etc.

Imagine being this retarded

When I see people crying about theme parks, their solution to the problem of open world garbage is to make maps even bigger and sparser. That's the exact opposite of what should happen.

I pretty much suggested the opposite, making it denser:

Good, but San Andreas was still not nearly dense enough.

You're insanely wrong to a really humorous degree

Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction.

I'm pretty sure Metal Gear was improved by actually attempting to elevate its gameplay out of the fucking 80's, not by an open world.

Controllers in the 80's had two buttons. Your idea of 80's gameplay comes from never playing any games from that time.

1) Wrap hands around neck

2) Strangle yourself to death

2a) Don't forget to post the video on Yea Forums

Metal Gear games' gameplay has had the depth of Metal Gear 1 all the way until Ground Zeroes.

don't forget mirror's edge

Attached: ME vs MEC AI.webm (960x540, 2.9M)

That's an incorrect statement, posting idiotic shit will never further whatever argument you were trying to make.

That's true. You are correct, but it is a step in the right direction.

Dots and cones in a maze is 80's gameplay. I've played MGS2. It's dots and cones in a maze.

Attached: full extent of Metal Gear Solid gameplay.png (1132x898, 82K)

Ignoring the rest of the game doesn't make it go away. That's literally just the minimap.

nobody took anything from you user
games are products catered to the young by the industry, you are not young anymore so technically YOU took those away from you

explain how any mg is more complex than mgs
its just the same game over and over again with a more idiotic story every time

I refuse to believe that the young kids can't appreciate proper level design

>explain how any mg is more complex than mgs
Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 aren't more complex than Metal Gear Solid, I think you're struggling with the language.
>its just the same game over and over again with a more idiotic story every time
It's evident once you've actually played them. You sound either 12 or too stupid to tie your own shoelaces, so it's understandable why you'd be confused. Also, are you trying to discuss the gameplay or the story here?

There's nothing improper about open level design.

kill yourself?
I mean, that'd be the easiest solution

Wrong. MGS is the minimap. The rest of the screen is just a fancy 3d representation of the barebones gameplay that happens on the radar.

>mfw greatly enjoyed all of them
imagine being so bitter you can't even enjoy playing videogames anymore hahaha
nigger just stop playing, just go watch a movie or go draw or whatever it is you're into that you find fun then hahahaha

There's the fact it's non-existent

impossible, just give up. There are plenty of non open world games and they won't ever stop being made.

no one likes a contrarian.

All of those games had some open world elements if not being straight out open world to begin with like Zelda was

Every human being has Hitler elements in that it breathes oxygen. The problem is when it goes full Hitler.

>There's nothing improper about open level design.
There's a difference between open levels and open world game design. Open levels is something that MGS never had until Ground Zeroes, which to my perception seems to be a fairly decent single non-linear level in a larger game, a game that doesn't exist. Open world design is when you just have a huge piece of terrain and you slap some building assets on top with zero regard for balance or navigation and the the player loose. At lest MGSV had the courtesy of adding the features required for any enjoyment to be extracted out of something where you literally have to make your own fun. MGSV's lack of level design combined with MGS1's lack of goddamn mechanics of any kind would have probably made it the worst game ever produced.

>MGS is the minimap
Maybe your television isn't working properly, that's a feature to show you where you are in relation to the level. there are many other systems at play, but again, you'd need to actually play the game to notice.

So, you're just playing in an empty void? I think you've gotten enough attention for the day, don't you agree?

>Open levels is something that MGS never had until Ground Zeroes
This is incorrect, they tried to have them ever since the first game. They were just cut up in chunks due to hardware limitations.
There's a difference between having an open map, and an empty, barren shitland like in the phantom pain. Groud Zeroes also had a densely packed map in a reduced area, so it doesn't really fall under the same category as the main game.

Become president and order a the military to purge the entire game industry in the west.

there will always be a desire to simulate reality in video games. and real life is an open world, so you're fucked you dumbass, stop whining.

It'll end when they move on to Live Services games.

>Open world design is when you just have a huge piece of terrain and you slap some building assets on top with zero regard for balance or navigation and the the player loose.
People who say this but also shit on breath of the wild pretty much have no actual opinions and are just knee jerk reactionaries who don't bother to actually examine games and how they're designed.

No, MGS level design is an incredibly constrained simplified variant of Metroidvania where you barely have any item-gated branches in progression.

Attached: FCBaT.png (552x1080, 1.22M)

anyone else played Dredd vs Death?

That would only work against your argument, because metroid is an open world game. Castlevania didn't really work like that until around a year before MGS came out.
The fact that they make it a point to force you to backtrack in MGS and even MG is a clear sign that they wanted those worlds to feel connected, and not just a hallway from point A to point B. It's certainly not open world, but the intention was there from the start. The End's boss fight in MGS3 is another clear example of where they wanted the series to go.

Yeah, it's okay. It has some neat ideas but it's not a very good shooter. You should give it a go.

Make a game so good and so popular it becomes a trend in the gaming industry.

yaaaaas slaaaaay

I wish I knew, user. I wish I knew.

Fill WEBM and screenshot threads with content from linear games.

Attached: momohime.jpg (801x1000, 328K)

no wait
okay...
what about... tetris, but with crafting?

I always thought that too. The only difference between "open world" and "metroidvania" seems to be that the former is in 3D and the latter is in 2D. Also the latter tends to have that more densely packed level design instead of the open world size for the sake of size bullshit, though some of them (many Castlevania games in particular) have that too.

>because metroid is an open world game.
No, absolutely not. Metroid and MGS are both games where you get access to locations and then you need to find things that give you access to branches of those locations through which you find a way to proceed to other areas. They're not big pieces of horizontal land with natural formations and vegetation, and with roads and vehicles for travel. Nor are they giant sprawling complexes of multiple floors of different elevations, with a minimum of two ways in and out of every places and with a dozen routes to initially infiltrate. There's a distinct difference between metroidvania, non-linear level design and open world.

>The only difference between "open world" and "metroidvania" seems to be that the former is in 3D and the latter is in 2D.
No, the difference is item gating. Take for example Resident Evil. You have a fairly large ingame world with interconnected routes, all separated by multiple variations of "the locked door". You are not thrown into a big wide environment with free reign to go where you please. You need to linearly explore different branches of the level design to find what you need to open more branches.

2021 Doom will be openworld, mark my words.

>No, absolutely not.
I think we're done here, the map is open to a certain degree from the start, and it becomes more open the more you progress through the game. You're never constrained to go in one single direction, and revisiting previous areas is always an option.
Anything else is just semantics and retarded bullshit.

Yes we are done because you don't know the definition of commonly known terms. Non-linear is not open world. Open world is not metroidvania. Metroidvania is not non-linear.

>because metroid is an open world game
Oh, great. It's another episode of a retard thinking that all it takes for a game to be open world is that it's even remotely non linear.
Metroid is open world
Dark Souls is open world
Animal Crossing is open world
Retard

More like your autism sets imaginary definitions and you get upset when people disagree with them.

Well, yes, stupid, what the fuck else would "open world" mean? Stop trying to force your imaginary definitions on other people, you assburger piece of shit.

finally someone with the courage

A big important part of open world is scale, you utter brainlet. It has to be a humongous map. It just being non-linear isn't nearly enough.
I promise that no one but your faggot ass calls Animal Crossing an open world game, you utter clown.

Actually you're just salty that you didn't know your shit and someone told you.

what are you on about? Fallout was always open world.

Fallout is so open world that the new game made by the original Fallout creators has the same map system as Fallout and yet no one calls it an open world game.

By 1990 standards, yes, Fallout was open world.

By 2019 standards, it is absolutely not an open world game. Go check the number of areas that the game zooms on. They're minuscule. The average Pokemon game is bigger.

And you're so violently retarded you think you can redefine words because of your ailment. The world is open, it's open world.
Even a mental cripple like you can grasp that idea.

>by 2019 standards
Do those standards exist anywhere outside of your head?

Yes, they do. Go call The Outer Worlds an open world game on another Yea Forums thread and get laughed at.

That isn't even out yet. Are you off your meds?

We already know how its map system works, though.
Go call Animal Crossing an open world game, then. You'll get laughed there too.
And if you call Dark Souls an open world game, or god forbid, Metroid, I promise you that many people will come disagree with you. You're out of your depth here.

Calling Metroid an open world game is one of the most retarded things I've read on Yea Forums today

It seems you operate on the basis of whether you're going to get laughed at or not, instead of on whether you're correct.

Explain how it isn't an open world game.

And my ass!

Attached: 1558239074175.jpg (1000x1000, 106K)

Only after you explain to me how Animal Crossing is not an open world game either by your dumb definition

wat

No, explain how metroid isn't an open world game. Animal Crossing has nothing to do with your statement.
Sort that mess between your ears.

>Animal Crossing has nothing to do with your statement
It does. It's my main argument on why you're retarded.
Tell me how Animal Crossing is NOT an open world game by your definition and it becomes quite evident why you are wrong.

What's wrong with open world? I literally haven't touched a game that isn't open world in the past 5 years

How is metroid not an open world game? It's a pretty straightforward question which you can't seem to answer.

>Complaining about dodging questions while dodging my question
Right, we're done here.

Open world games all inevitably have very low content density. They severely water down the good shit they have by sprinkling it over a gigantic map that is also filled with emptyness, worthless collectibles and very repetitive quests and activities which might as well have been procedurally generated (and which obviously don't count as real content, since they're boring as shit). This registers to casuals and/or brainlets like a bigger better world with more immersion, but what it actually is is shit padding. That's why open world games suck.
And no, this doesn't apply exclusively to Ubisoft open world games. Ubisoft is the easy scapegoat. The truth is that even the supposedly "good" open world games are shit for the exact same reasons I just stated above. That includes shit like Morrowind, New Vegas, The Witcher 3 (if you want to count it), Breath of the Wild, etc. It's all the same shit.
For some reason, there are people that love walking or riding horses or driving through empty roads while looking at the scenery and they consider that good gameplay. I don't.

Justify your statement here:
>Calling Metroid an open world game is one of the most retarded things I've read on Yea Forums today
How is Metroid not an open world game?

I hate how we've reached the point where Yea Forums is so underage that they think open-world games are new and linearity is how games used to be.

Open-world came first. Games had freedom before they had linearity. If you've played a game from before the PS2 then you'd know this.

The average old game was not open world. Shit like Metroid isn't open world. I can think of very old open world games like Elder Scrolls Arena, but it's no coincidence that game is trash.

This is a bluff, you think nobody here is old enough to call you out on your bullshit.

>Shit like Metroid isn't open world.
How isn't it open world? Why are you avoiding the question?

>Shit like Metroid isn't open world
Your whole argument for that comes down to progression gating. But I've never played a game that didn't have progression gating, open world or otherwise

I guess GTA 3 isn't open world, either, because it doesn't let you access the second and third islands until you get to a certain point in the story.

Make a game that isn't open world that sells so much that every jew in charge of publishers makes their studios mimic what you did

>I never played MGS 2 or 3, the post

Attached: 1530683375996.jpg (266x240, 7K)

retard

So, Animal Crossing is an open world game?

It is according to this retard