to access exclusive content, comment on articles, win prizes and post on our forums. Not a member yet? Join now!
CVG
Features

'I'm fed up of open worlds'

Do games have to be overwhelming to be enjoyable?

On last week's mailbox we had Steve Wright, who parroted Tim Schafer's sentiments by saying publishers are scared of new IPs and that he's bored of sequels.

This week we've got Jon Gates, who's just a says he feels just a little bit overwhelmed by open-world games.

To have your letter featured on CVG's Mailbox, drop us a line.

Over to Jon.

Zoom
One step at a time. Just like Bats.

I'm fed up of open worlds. Arkham City is daunting, and before I can do small quests on Skyrim I'm thrust into destroying dragons. Both are excellent, but there's too much. Sandbox is great, but Arkham Asylum and Hitman show it doesn't have to be massive to be enjoyable.

PSM3 says: Many found Arkham City overwhelming - fair point - but you can ignore the main quests in Skyrim and the dragons won't turn up. Good point: are big worlds really better than small, highly-detailed ones?

CVG says: We agree, open-world games can be very overwhelming and in fact we'll admit to feeling a bit lost for the first hour or two of Arkham City, but there's a trick to playing them.

It's important to compartmentalise your tasks and also prioritise what you want to do. For example, in Skyrim we focused on each of the different guilds before powering through the main quest. In Batman we opted to complete the main story before heading back and mopping up the Riddler's stuff. By doing that we find open-world games to be far more manageable.

You're right though, games don't have to be huge to be enjoyable, but it's nice to have the option.

Comments