Why are there so many more in the right category

This entire chart is arbitrary.

Chart is retarded. GTA is on the left side while RDR is on the right when RDR is just GTA set a hundred years earlier. And the open world of RDR2 is far more important to that game than it has been in any GTA

because it sells

By that retarded logic Oblivion should be on the gimmick side as well since it's just dumbed down Morrowind etc.

It is just shittier Oblivion with guns but open world is still essential to the gameplay. You once again took the bait and viewed the left as good and the right as bad, even though it isn't even talking about quality.

Fallout and Skyrim are basically the same game reskinned, why are they on opposing sides?

The Fallout games and Odyssey are great games. Everything else I agree with.

RDR and Fallout are just arbitrarily applying the formula from the other successful game series to a series that doesn't need it, there is nothing in RDR or Fallout that necessitates the open world the way GTA's and TES' core ideas do, you could segment them out into any type of non-open game format and they would still work largely the same. New Vegas even proved it with how linear it is in the first half which is the actual better half.

All these games are good and fun to play
KYS

who said otherwise schizo

Yakuza's open world is essential

If there's one game that truly fits in the right category, it's Gears of War 5. The open world is completely pointless. Zero enemies and anything to discover. You just drive to a waypoint marker, abandon your car, and go through a standard linear GoW stage. They could have just made a mission select screen and nothing would change.

There is quite a lot of games that fit into that category. The latest Halo may be the most glarring example.
But I would argue that games like The Witcher 3 and CP77 both fit into that category as well. The open world in those games exists for narrative purposes, but in neither game does it actually enrich the gameplay itself.

>They could have just made a mission select screen and nothing would change.
same could be said for all the games on the right

I'm surprised nobody's pointed out Breath of the Wild yet. It has better traversal mechanics for the open world than any of the games on the left aside from like Spiderman maybe

Those traversal mechanics don't need an open world to work

>Fallout on the right
Fallout has been open world since the first one zoomer

ah, this is the new variant of the "neo-fun/nu-fun" bait picture I presume.

Exploration is a core part of Nu Fallout, what the fuck are you even talking about? Whether or not you like the games, the open world is core to their identity

BotW's open world is a core fucking part of the design philosophy. The average Yea Forums user couldn't understand basic game design if it was a pair of sweaty anime titties being pressed into their face

No, the fact that it's open world literally never comes into play

Sure, just like GTA does not need cars to work.

Guess NES Final Fantasy is open world now too lmao, zoomies crack me up

>open world isn't essential to AC: Black Flag where the only good thing about it is navigating the seas.

Attached: 1608786031773.png (300x294, 167.36K)

Wrong, cars are a core part of GTA and need the open world to work, there is nothing in BotW that needs the open world to work, let alone something that's a core gameplay mechanic.

>wether or not something is designed around a concept depends on how well that concept is executed
user, I think you might genuinely have brain damage.

Yes, it is a bait image to jew (You)s out of you.

Exploration doesn't necessitate or imply open world, the first Borderlands has the same style of exploration and isn't open world, Fallout adopting the same format and progression system would actually benefit it

>BotW would be the same game were it a series of dungeons that you select from a hub

No but you could segment it out into a classic 3D Zelda and it would be largely the same

OOT, MM, and WW are pretty much already OpenWorld

Are you just roundabout wishing BotW had more dungeons?

No, no they weren't. I can see where much of the confusion ITT comes from since people don't even seem to know the meanings of the terms they're discussing.

Fallout 1 and 2 are both open world

They aren't

Why? You can travel across the world of GTA without entering a car. Just like you could drive around in small self-contained level, if GTA was built like that.
It would, of course, be super fucking lame, but that is an entirely different point.

Yeah, you could climb around in a smaller linear level in BotW, but that would completely take away the long-term routing, or the ability to approach areas from different directions. Aka the traversal mechanics would be kinda pointless the way they work now.

Why not? You can travel anywhere on the map.

When you drive a car or fly a plane in GTA or swing around in Spider-Man, there is a continuous flow to the traversal that shouldn't be interrupted by segmenting or loading screens, and that sort of open world traversal is core both to the main designed gameplay and the fucking around gameplay, there are missions that have you doing rounds around the world in that way, and the fun comes from doing it uninterrupted.

Meanwhile BotW's traversal doesn't have anything like that, once you've climbed one cliff and started going for the next one, having a loading screen or an area segment between them doesn't change anything, they're treated as completely separate gameplay elements, it constantly breaks its flow anyway so the open world isn't necessary for anything gameplay-related. At the same time it has no main designed content that utilized the open world in any way, all of its quests would work just as well in the classic hub Zelda format.

Because it's a map overworld with a limited amount of predetermined locations

Attached: 1633788669858.png (1412x776, 44.63K)

>TES on the left but Fallout on the right
>BotW on the right
what

>games I like on the left
>games I dislike on the right
Bravo OP, you're a fucking retard.

>Meanwhile BotW's traversal doesn't have anything like that, once you've climbed one cliff and started going for the next one, having a loading screen or an area segment between them doesn't change anything, they're treated as completely separate gameplay elements, it constantly breaks its flow anyway so the open world isn't necessary for anything gameplay-related.
How is this different from what you describe about GTA or Spider-Man? I genuinely struggle to understand the point you are trying to make. Are you saying because the enemy encounters in BotW the world is not a "proper" open world?

Semi-Open > Hub (vide VTMB/Deus Ex) > Semi-Linear > power gap > Full Linear > Full Open > Gated Open

It's pretty fucking obvious that OP deliberately put the games in the most illogical fashion possible to rake up those (YOU)'s.

>Are you saying because the enemy encounters in BotW
*are more condensed

Which is why I never gave him one.

I love New Vegas more than any game on the left though

I think there's a high likelihood OOT would have been open world if the n64 could have handled it

>GTA4 and 5
>Open world is essential to gameplay
??????????

In addition to walking/running, which is a basic element of any game like graphics or controls are, GTA and Spider-Man have driving vehicles, flying planes, and web swinging as core traversal mechanics, you are expected to be doing them for the majority of the gameplay and when you're not, then to be looking for the opportunities to do them.

You can initiate them at basically any time and using them is what the devs want you to be doing both in the missions they designed and outside while free roaming, so the worlds are designed in a way that let you continually do them uninterrupted over the entire playable area, which makes the open world necessary for the core gameplay. If instead Spider-Man wasn't set in NY but in some other maybe fictional city that had a large grass plain in between two halves with buildings where you were forced to stop swinging and had to walk on foot every time, that interruption in the flow might as well be a separate loaded segment and the need to be open world disappears.

Meanwhile traversal in BotW is constantly broken up into segments and most of it is contextual, and there are no designed quests that have you covering large parts of the map in one interrupted go, which means that you could break the world into separate loaded pieces and not much would change. Even things like gliding can be accounted for in a non-open world game since there's always a limit to far how you can go with it.

>limited amount of predetermined locations
Sounds like every game in the original picture. None of them are randomly generated or anything like that.

No, all of them have one giant location with largely no interruptions, as opposed to a dozen small locations with breaks between them which is what the first two Fallouts are

>Breath of the Wild
>>>>Open world isn't essential to the gameplay
Masterful bait 10/10

>I like gaem, open world essential
>I don't like gaem, open world gimmick
What a retarded waste of a thread

As opposed to your stance, which is
>I like gaem, open world essential

seems like a pretty arbitrary and subjective way to distinguish what counts as open world. what's the exact ratio of actual areas to filler space (the desert in FO/long empty paths in Skyrim) that makes something open world?

>Marvel Spider-Man
user, are you being serious?
I literally feel it like it was just other batman game just with spiderman in it

Attached: 1622906344288.jpg (808x1200, 111.86K)

user these are basic terms and definitions we're dealing here, your inability to understand them doesn't make them incorrect somehow. The world formats in Fallout 1/2 and 3/4 are so fundamentally different on every level that your inability to tell them apart comes across as facetious.