You start to see where the limits of the world are, and it starts to become fake again.Īnd that makes me think about Fallout 4 again. Sure, that townsperson says he has his own story, but he looks just like that other townsperson and he lives in an identical house. But CD Projekt Red is also a much smaller developer than most of its competitors, and that shows through in just how much they had to rely on asset-reuse. The characters, big and small, were some of the best I've ever seen in a video game like this, and CD Projekt Red's ability to infuse even the smallest task with life and personality contribute to the sense of scope that the game accomplishes so well. The Witcher 3 succeeded and failed in terms of making that world live. It's not the "400" hours that matter, it's the "+."īut we've seen open worlds crammed to the gills with content before, and that doesn't always make them compelling.
It's about making a world that appears to have a life without you: if you can't see where a thing ends, as far as you know, it doesn't. Even if you choose not to go down that particular rabbit hole, the game benefits just from it being there. You see a town with a couple of questlines in it, and you maybe talk to an NPC or two to get some more info. But it's the mere presence of that content that makes the world so engaging, whether or not you actually choose to engage with it. I'm never going to play The Witcher 3 for 400 hours, or 200, or whatever they've said the upward limit is, just like I'm never going to play Fallout 4 for 400 hours. I've been thinking of this in light of The Witcher 3, which I revisited a little bit in preparation for the glut of open world games we'll be getting in the coming months, starting with M etal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain and Mad Max on tuesday.
0 kommentar(er)
