Tag: open world games

Today I thought we could have a bit of fun and talk about some of my more controversial gaming opinions! This is the first part of a two-part list, so be sure to stay tuned in the days ahead for five more gaming “hot takes.” There were too many to fit into a single piece this time around!

Although this is intended to be lighthearted and somewhat tongue-in-cheek, these are opinions that I genuinely hold; I’m not making things up for the sake of clickbait. I’ll always give the caveat that I’m a fan of video games and an advocate for gaming as a hobby… but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t things to criticise from time to time!

Gaming has changed a lot since I first picked up a joystick at a kids’ club in the ’80s, and I’ve seen the games industry and games themselves evolve dramatically! Most of those changes have been for the better… but perhaps not every last one.

As I always say when we talk about potentially controversial topics: these are my wholly subjective opinions! I’m not trying to claim that I’m right and that’s the end of the affair – on the contrary: I’m acutely aware that I’m in the minority here! I share these “hot takes” in the spirit of thought-provoking fun, and you are free to disagree wholeheartedly.

With all of that out of the way, let’s take a look at some “hot takes!”

“Hot Take” #1:
An open world isn’t the right choice for a lot of games.

Open worlds became a gaming trend sometime in the early 2010s, and too many publishers nowadays insist on forcing the formula onto titles that are entirely unsuited to it. Some open worlds are great… but I’d argue that relatively few manage to hit the golden combo of being both a well-constructed open world and one that suits the game in question. There have been some fantastic open worlds in which stories were told that didn’t fit, and some games that could’ve been wonderful that were undone by the fetishisation of the open world formula in some corporate boardrooms.

In many, many cases, having distinct levels or separate sections of a larger map just… works. It allows for the game’s narrative to create an often-necessary sense of physical distance in between locations – something that even the best open world maps are usually unable to manage. And for an awful lot of stories – even in games that we might consider to be masterpieces – that can be important to the immersion.

Take Red Dead Redemption II as an example. That game is one of the very best that I’ve ever played… but there were several points in its single-player story where the open world formula came close to being a problem. After escaping the town of Blackwater by the skin of their teeth in the game’s prologue, Arthur Morgan and the gang roam around in the mountains for a while, before eventually finding a new place to make camp… literally five minutes away from Blackwater. And this would happen again later in the game, when the gang would escape the town of Valentine only to settle at a new campsite just up the road.

The game’s narrative presented these locations as if they were far apart, but the open world of Red Dead Redemption II, for all of the content that it was filled with, didn’t always gel with that. It’s a scaled-down representation of part of the United States, and I get that. But narratively, it might’ve worked even better if the game’s main acts took place in separate, smaller open maps instead of merging them all into one larger open world.

Red Dead Redemption II is, without a doubt, one of the best games that I’ve ever played. So if the open world could be a problem there… well, you don’t need to think too hard to find examples of the open world formula tripping up worse and far less enjoyable titles! There’s absolutely nothing wrong with creating separate levels for a game – as has been done really since the beginning of narrative video games. Doing so often allows for more diversity in locations, environments, and terrain – and it’s something more titles need to consider taking advantage of.

I could probably count on my fingers the number of games that have genuinely made good use of an open world formula, and that have used that style of map properly. And when I think about modern games that I’ve really enjoyed such as The Last of Us, Jedi: Fallen Order, or the Mass Effect trilogy, they don’t use open worlds – and they’re much better for it.

“Hot Take” #2:
Every game should have a robust easy mode – it’s an accessibility feature.

I’m a big believer in making games accessible to as many players as possible. That can mean including accessibility features like colourblindness settings, disabling quick-time events, or ensuring that subtitles are available. But it also means that players need to be able to tone down the difficulty – yes, even in your precious Dark Souls!

I suffer from arthritis, including in my hands and fingers. I don’t have the ability to pull off complicated multi-button combos any more – if I ever possessed such an ability! And as with any skill or set of skills, gaming abilities vary from person to person; even someone who isn’t suffering from a health condition may simply not be blessed with the reflexes or hand-eye coordination necessary to progress through some of the industry’s more punishing titles. Not to mention that many folks don’t have the free time to dedicate to learning precise button combos or the intricate details of specific boss battles.

And that’s a real shame – because there are some outstanding games that everyone should be able to experience. Stories in some games are truly awe-inspiring, and can be better in some cases than films or television shows. For those stories to be denied to people with disabilities or people who may not have the time to repeat the same boss fight or level over and over again is just… sad.

I absolutely detest the expression “not every game is made for every player” when this debate rolls around. It’s absolutely true that people like different things, so if I’m not into online multiplayer shooters then I’m probably not going to enjoy the next Call of Duty title. But that doesn’t apply to difficulty, or to making a game that millions of potential players are locked out of because of a skill mismatch or health condition. That kind of gatekeeping is honestly just pathetic.

I’d also add that the reverse is true here: certain games can be too easy for some players, and including the option to increase the difficulty in that case is likewise a good thing and something that developers should seek to include.

Difficulty settings have been a part of games going back decades, and they aren’t all that difficult to implement. At the very least, giving players the option to skip a level or boss battle after failing it multiple times should be achievable for every developer – and I can’t think of a good reason why a studio that cares about its audience wouldn’t want to implement something so incredibly basic. It doesn’t “hurt” the game to include an easy mode, nor does it damage the developers’ “artistic vision.” An easy mode only impacts players who choose to turn it on – and in a single-player game, why should anyone be judgemental about that?

“Hot Take” #3:
Artificial intelligence isn’t “coming soon,” it’s already here – and the games industry will have to adapt.

One of the hottest topics of 2023 has been the arrival of easily-accessible generative AI software. It seems that anyone can now create an article like this one, a photorealistic image of just about anything, an audio recording of a celebrity… or even code for a video game. This technology has well and truly landed, and I don’t see any practical way to prohibit or ban it – so the games industry is going to have to adapt to that reality.

I can see a lot of potential positives to AI. Modding, for instance, can now get a lot more creative, and we’ve seen already mods featuring AI voices that are basically seamless and can add a lot to a character or story. For smaller developers and indie studios, too, AI has the potential to be a massively useful tool – doing things that a single developer or small team wouldn’t be able to achieve.

But there are unquestionably massive downsides. The games industry has seen significant layoffs this year – despite most of the big corporations making record profits. Corporations in all kinds of industries are looking to replace as many real humans as possible with AI software… and for an all-digital product like a video game, the potential for divisions or even entire studios being shut down is firmly on the table.

The arrival of generative AI is going to shake things up, and because of the way it works, I can absolutely see there being less creativity in the games industry if too many big corporations go down that road. Because of the way these AI programmes work, they aren’t capable of truly creating – only reworking things that already exist and generating something with the same parameters. If major video games start using AI in a big way, you can say goodbye to innovation and creativity.

Whichever company cracks AI first is, in all likelihood, going to be rewarded – so there may even be a kind of “AI arms race” within the games industry, as some of the biggest corporations duke it out to be the first one to strike the right balance between AI and human-created content. What that might mean for games in the short-to-medium term… I can’t really say.

Generative AI is here to stay, though, and I don’t see a way around that. Some folks have suggested boycotting AI-heavy titles, but these consumer boycotts seldom succeed. If a new game that relied on AI during its creation ends up being fun to play, I daresay it’ll get played. Most players don’t follow the ins and outs of the industry, and may never even know the extent to which their favourite game was created using AI. I hope you’re ready for AI… because I’m not sure that I am!

“Hot Take” #4:
Sonic the Hedgehog doesn’t work in 3D.

We’re going franchise-specific for this one! I adored the first Sonic the Hedgehog games on the Sega Mega Drive. I didn’t have a Mega Drive at the time, but a friend of mine did and we played a lot of Sonic in the early ’90s! Along with Super Mario, Sonic was one of the characters who scaled the mountain and was at the absolute peak of gaming… for a time.

But Sonic’s sole gimmick meant that the character struggled to successfully make the transition from 2D side-scrolling games to fully 3D titles. Extreme speed is something that works well in a 2D title, but it’s hard to code and even harder to play in a 3D environment.

The most successful Sonic game this side of the millennium has been Sonic Mania… a 2017 title that was originally created by fans of the series before Sega got involved. Sonic Mania is an old-school 2D platformer in the style of the original Mega Drive games. It’s great fun, and a real return to form for Sega’s mascot after years of mediocrity.

Sonic’s fundamental problem begins with his sole superpower: speed. Extreme speed was something that felt wonderful in 2D… and not to mention incredibly innovative! But in 3D, it’s just so much more difficult to build worlds suited to moving so quickly – not to mention that it’s tricky for players to control a character moving at such speed.

There have been 3D Sonic games that tried to innovate, but even the best of them feel like they’re missing something. I remember playing Sonic Adventure on the Dreamcast and barely having to push any buttons; in order to make Sonic work in 3D, much of the interactivity had to be stripped out. That made for a far less enjoyable gaming experience.

When Sonic shows up in other titles – such as alongside Mario for an arcadey sports game, or in Sega’s Mario Kart competitor – then the character can be made to work. But those games almost always rob Sonic of his one defining trait: his speed. I’ve never played a 3D Sonic game that felt anywhere near as good as those original 2D titles.

“Hot Take” #5:
Google Stadia was a good idea (in more ways than one).

The history of video gaming is littered with failed consoles and devices; machines that didn’t quite make it for one reason or another. 2019’s Stadia – Google’s attempt to break into the games industry – has become the latest example, being fully shut down after only a couple of years. There were myriad problems with Stadia, and Google has a track record of not backing up its projects and investments nor giving them enough time to deliver. So in that sense its failure is understandable. But I think I’m out on a limb when I say that it’s disappointing – and potentially even bad for the games industry as a whole.

Stadia offered a relatively inexpensive way to get started with gaming by relying on streaming. Gone was the need for an expensive console or PC; players could jump in using only their existing screen and a Stadia controller. Lowering the cost of entry to gaming is a good thing, and we should be looking around for more ways to do that!

Secondly, Stadia represented the first potential shake-up of a pretty stagnant industry in nigh-on twenty years. Since Microsoft entered the video game market and Sega dropped out, there have been three major hardware manufacturers and three main gaming platforms. Disrupting that status quo is, again, not a bad thing in theory. Stadia, with Google’s support and financial resources, seemed well-positioned to be the kind of disruptive force that often leads to positive change.

Stadia won’t be remembered – except as the answer to an obscure pub quiz question in a few years’ time, perhaps. But it had potential when it was announced, both in terms of the way it could have brought console-quality games to people who couldn’t necessarily pay for a current-generation machine up-front, and in the way Google could’ve disrupted the industry, leading to competition and innovation.

I didn’t buy into Stadia on day one. As someone who has a gaming PC, I didn’t really feel it was necessary. And there were limitations to Stadia: a lack of exclusive games, no subscription option, and Google’s well-known history of prematurely shutting down underperforming products and services. All of these things put me off – and undoubtedly put off a lot of other folks, too.

But in a way, I regret the demise of Stadia. Its short, unsuccessful life will surely be a warning to any other company that might’ve considered launching a new console or a comparable streaming device, and if there’s one thing I think we can all agree on it’s this: the games industry needs a shake-up from time to time! Stadia couldn’t do it, unfortunately… but I hope that another device will.

So that’s it… for now!

Stay tuned, because I have five more “hot takes” that I’m currently in the process of writing up.

As I said at the beginning, none of these things should be taken too seriously – this is just intended to be a bit of thought-provoking fun, at the end of the day.

There’s a lot to love about gaming as a hobby, and the quality of video games in general is way higher today than I could’ve imagined even just a few years ago. There are some incredible games out there; masterpieces in every sense of the word that have given me some of the best entertainment experiences I’ve ever had. And there are some games that I didn’t enjoy, too! I hope this look at a few of my “hot takes” hasn’t gotten anyone too upset!

All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective studio, developer, and/or publisher. Some images used above courtesy of IGDB and Unsplash. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.