Originally Posted by artemis42
Originally Posted by Baudolino05
That being said, the latest TES games ARE open-worlds for dummies. Simply because they hold your hand in any possible way... In games such these it's basically impossible: To find a mob stronger than you are; to get lost; to be unable to complete a quest, etc. Thank god Original Sin is not this kind of game.


I don't think that's fair. Static mobs, such as the ones in Morrowind, undermined the game's open world freedom by forcing you to learn (painfully) where you could and could not go. That's not an open world; that's an on-rails game that lets you stray off the beaten path but then clubs you over the head when you do. What you call open worlds for dummies I call true open worlds.

BGS went to the other extreme with Oblivion, but I think FO3 and Skyrim (as flawed as they are) finally got the formula right in regards to freedom of exploration. They are games designed for replayability, whereas DOS is designed for a single, intense playthrough.


Frankly, I can't see how people can call "exploration" the act of following passively a quest mark on a compass/minimap.
What you call true open world I call boring wandering around, and no, open world games with static mobs aren't false open-world. A) Because at any given level they give you many places/areas to visit b) Because usually they feature not-so-obvious ways to explore high level areas before you have the suggested level for doing that.
As for the replayability, I don't think a game where you can max all the skills, become master of all the guilds and finish (almost) all the quests in a single playthrough is designed for replayability. You need consequences to have replayability, ad TES games have VERY few of them.

Again: I'm REALLY glad that Original Sin has nothing in common with the latest TES game.

Last edited by Baudolino05; 12/04/14 06:05 PM.