>/v/ hates the "open-world" maymay >/v/ loves

>>387127375
>/v/ is one person

>>387127375
Don't know if I would call VTMB open-world. It's a linear series of closed hubs, which are all a bit on the claustophobic side.

Anyway, when people complain about open-world they are generally talking about the "quantity over quality" problem which exists in some of these games.

"A THOUSAND DUNGEONS... with three tilesets and scaled enemies/loot."

"YOU CAN GO ANYWHERE... but there is not compelling reason to do so."

You can't level those criticisms at the games you mention in the OP. (Well, I might say it about Morrowind to an extent.)

>>387127375
If you consider any of those games open world than I have no idea what open world means.
>segmented hubs/zones /=/ open world
imo

>>387127375
>/v/ is one person

>>387127896
Old Fallouts and Zelda qualify. Once you've progressed, you can revisit any area with a few exceptions.

>>387127375
VTMB and Zelda aren't Open World.

>Planescape
>Open world
you fucking what?

>>387128073
BoTW is, and it's one of the few that gets its dick sucked around here by everyone.

>>387128073
I haven't played the NES or Wii games but I have played everything between LTTP and Twilight Princess. I consider all of those games to be open world. I don't see how they are not. You always have the freedom to go back to visit Kokiri Forest or whatever.

The problem isn't open world per se. It's the fact that "open world" nowadays just means 90% filler and 10% actual gameplay. The problem is rehashed open world unfun games with no clever design. Games like Skyrim, Watch Dogs, far cry, later assassins creeds, etc..

And I wouldn't consider VTMB to be open world at all. Neither would I say the same for old fallouts. These places have many different areas you can choose to go to but no real filler.

Open world games done right would be Fallout New vegas, morrowind, assassins creed 2, RDR, GTAs, BOTW

>>387129083
RDR absolutely fits the first definition you gave. There's absolutely fuck all to do out in the world

>>387127375
There's different types of open world. When people shit on open world they're usually referring to the quantity over quality kind that shoves the map full of filler content at the expense of the main quest. Basically the kind that Ubisoft popularized.

The difference between BotW and previous Zeldas (among other things) is that BotW has very few barriers to impede the player from travelling from one end of the map to the other at the start of the game. At most you might run into a stray enemy but they're generally quite easy to avoid. There's no real obstacles that block your path, and no items to overcome said obstacles. Now some people might say that kind of limitless freedom is a good thing, but personally I think it misses the point of action-adventure games. It makes the player's sense of progress very hollow and trivializes the level design. It also meant that Nintendo had to give most of the content roughly the same difficulty/complexity because there's a chance that any piece of content could be the player's first.

>>387127375
I'd prefer going back to smaller maps, but if open-world is the future then I wish they would do it properly.

Filling the world with lootable items needs to go and so does low quality side quests/collectibles. It's hard to enjoy an open world if exploring it feels like a long 60+ hour slog full of chores. I get more enjoyment from doing the dishes

>>387129159
Not at all. RDR's scenery was magnificent. It's a western game, a lot of it's supposed to be empty. Stumbling upon quests, getting into long horse chases with marshalls, hunting animals, and picking plants all add to the fun. The good part about it is that if you want to ignore the open world the main quest is still pretty linear and the hubs are all amazingly designed.