Why Do We Say "Open-World" and Think Grand Theft Auto?
- desolate9
- Feb 5, 2015
- 7 min read
Open-World? Yea, I like that...
For over the past decade, gaming has seen technological leaps and bounds. Since PlayStation 2, games have gotten bigger, much bigger. So with all of that space able to render, came a new type of game-play; open-world. Giving the player choices to play the game however they want to. You have this huge open expanse to explore and discover its secrets. So why is then that when we think of open-world games, we automatically compare it to Grand Theft Auto? Because Grand Theft Auto III on PS2, was one of the first, if not the first commercially successful game to feature an open world. So much so, that it changed the face of the game. People noticed, and the fad took off. Now we have Western RPG's like Fallout, Elder Scrolls, and even Destiny offers a number of these features. One thing they all have in common, is open world. It works, and if it stays in check, can offer compelling stories and ability.
These are both "Open-World" Franchises, but they don't look the same do they...
Fast forward to 2013, we have had Ubisoft's super successful franchise; Assassin's Creed, THQ had made their own open-world series in Saints Row, which went completely off the rails over the years. Bethesda helped bring out Elder Scrolls IV, and V, The Witcher was introduced to the world. And of course we had lots of Grand Theft Auto, by now we are anticipating the fifth numerical title in the series featuring three protagonists you can change independently of each other. Loaded with cool features, Rockstar once again raises the bar. However, Grand Theft Auto is GTA, Assassin's Creed is AC, Fallout & Elder Scrolls; they are RPG's, they are open-world, but they are NOT Grand Theft Auto.
For years since GTA III came out, people clamored for this open-world concept. And of course when a game was similar would come out, we would say, "Hey its open-world like Grand Theft Auto!". I have heard it for years, and it is to the point where every open-world game in a city is compared to GTA. I'm sure it is flattering for the developers to hear their game being recognized and compared to the best, but we all know they fail because gamers hold them to this standard of "Oh, I need to play a new GTA, Saints Row better be it." And of course, I'm saying. "Dude, Saints is Saints, GTA is GTA, stop comparing them, they aren't the same!" Now, fortunately, Saints Row going off the rails after the first game was the best choice, because it enabled the franchise to break away from GTA, now Saints is Saints, and GTA is GTA. I wondered why this was. Why was it that after three titles, all of a sudden Saints Row was no longer compared to GTA, is it because people started to realize they were telling a story for the first few games, that connected? People saw it differently. You could smoke bongs on the street, customize cars to insane levels, and more! This was in the first game! Naturally Grand Theft Auto picked up some nods from Saints Row, but in all, they are their own games. And gamers need to recognize that. Just because you like GTA and want to play GTA doesn't mean the next "open-world" action-shooter has to be like Grand Theft Auto. Just because you want your next "open-world" experience to be like Elder Scrolls: Skyrim, or Fallout: New Vegas doesn't mean The Witcher 3 has to compare. Its not Elder Scrolls: Witcher 3, or Fallout: Witcher 3, its The Witcher 3. A different franchise from different people. Another thing that frustrates me is how people are constantly comparing BioWare's two blockbuster franchises; Dragon Age & Mass Effect. They say we have a new Mass Effect, people immediately start comparing it to the last Dragon Age. And visa versa; and it doesn't even make sense why... I've played them all, and the only similarities I saw was the conversation wheel. Big deal, so BioWare wants to give you options. That doesn't mean we need to senselessly compare a space sci-fi epic, to a medieval themed fantasy world.
These are all Western RPG's that have "Open-Worlds", but they have nearly nothing in common aside from the obvious...
I think all in all the main problem is when gamers compare games to each other. They were never meant to be compared, and while games share similar styles and ideas sometimes, they do not copy each other. In the mobile market, yes; but not in big-time gaming. Take Destiny for example. People immediately started saying it was going to be Call of Duty in space. Just because Activision publishes it, doesn't mean it is Call of Duty people! As a matter of fact, the only Call of Duty nod in Destiny is the control scheme, modified from Halo's LEGENDARY "Legacy" setup. Which means Call of Duty actually uses a modified Bungie control scheme. Doesn't Bungie make Destiny anyways? But because they added the slide from CoD and other shooters, now it CoD? No its Destiny. People build these expectations because of one thing or another, and the idea falls flat or fails to gain momentum at all. Because it doesn't live up to said-hype caused by comparing the game to others. I mean common, if all you want to do is shoot guns, join the military if you need the fix. Let's enjoy Battlefield for the uniqueness it brings to the table compared to Call of Duty. Not because the games "look" the same. I get people may want that comparison for something that relative, but not when my game is a sci-fi shooter like Halo. I don't NEED to be like Call of Duty or Battlefield, so quit whining.
Seriously people, I get it. They look the same, play the same, but they are NOT the same...
Honestly I am sick of it. Too many times I read reviews from magazines, internet, and such where people compare games to something similar to build hype or support their review column by getting views because they compared it to the big block-buster. Those reviews are often written on early builds, so they aren't even good assessments in the first place! Then gamers like me take that word as Gospel because of our loyalty to the site, then slam a game based on pre-footage, renders, demos, and etc. These are typically UNFINISHED projects and products meant to give you a "SENSE" of what the game will be like. To judge the game based on that is not fair. These people tease this stuff to get you guys and me, the gamer's, excited... Not to listen to them say "I want Call of Duty, or Grand Theft Auto; make it like that". When they should be saying something like "Oh, man, check it out, they have features from GTA! That will be fun." Gamers need to have a more understanding attitude against new franchises. This of course ties into the last post I made, talking about new franchises and the lack of support they get, or the budgets get out of control because of marketing to introduce something to the world. And of course they fail when companies buy all their product early to fill pre-orders, but then find out everyone who bought it hated it, traded it in, and they are sitting on stock of a terrible game because Call of Duty fans bought it thinking it would be like CoD. However there are times where this happens because a game is just plain terribad... Like Aliens: Colonial Marines.
So my plea to you guys is simple. I want to ask that you think about these things, and consider this the next time you compare something to another title. The similarities should be considered an honor to one developer, and an opportunity to reach gamers for the new guy. Personally, I don't moan every time I hear the words Metroid-Vania which is used to refer to games that are built like Castlevania or Metroid that use specialized restrictions forcing you to traverse the map in multiple directions. This could be locks, key-cards, or even power-ups that give you the ability to reach your destination. I embrace that exploration as getting more for my money. And I think it is creative because now and again it allows you to extend the game without the need to rebuild levels. I think for developers a game using that style is an automatic look for me. I don't always bite though. As I said before, I am a huge fan of these things, and I love the idea of completing adventures separate from one another. But I no longer dive after the next big franchise release that have become annual, if not quarterly. I wait for them to hit cheap pre-owned, under $30, and focus on the good stuff these days. The things no one else wants to touch. I have the new Grand Theft Auto on PlayStation 4, but that's because I wanted to experience the new Grand Theft Auto. But I'm also playing Prototype 2 on my PS3 right now, and inFamous: Second Son on PS4, both games people have compared to Grand Theft Auto. Why, because they all have big cities? Because you carry guns, drive cars, and can hurt people? I'm still not sold. inFamous is inFamous, GTA is GTA, and Prototype is Prototype. End of Story.
I know we didn't discuss them, but racing games always get this kind of attention... Why?
Appreciate your games everyone, and they will appreciate you. If you want to see a franchise receive attention it otherwise wouldn't have got? Hit the forums and throw your words in, start those people firing up! They WILL go check it out further. We can leave the trolls under the bridges, and teach other gamers to respect gaming for what it is... An expression of an art form, like movies and music... The ideas of one or many, put into a format we can enjoy. You don't compare Audioslave to Aerosmith, so why the hell would you do that for Grand Theft Auto and the next "open-world" game?
This is Desolate_9 just sharing some thoughts... Want to join the conversation, and you can be constructive? Leave it in the Comments, I check in. You can also follow me on Twitter @TheDesolate_9, and on my other Channels. Thanks for stopping by, and if you like the message, please share it on your local social-network... The only way thoughts are shared with others is through talking...
Next in the series on the subject:
Western RPG's versus Japanese RPG's (JRPG's)... Why "Dragon" doesn't always mean Dragon Age or Dragon Quest.
Comments