The Structure of Open-World Games is Weird

hope you're having a good day. :)

I always go into open world games super excited to explore, but I normally quickly realize that 90% of the map is absolutely empty and exploration was never really the devs priority in the first place...

I personally like the fact that in rdr2, you're just part of the world and that's it, the world doesn't revolve around you, and it makes it feel much livelier and basically revives the era it portrays and for me that is what actually makes it an open world game

I actually always try to NOT progress the main storyline in these games, and get frustrated when side quests themselves can’t be completed unless you progress the main story.

my favorite part of these games IS the mindless running around, completing side quests and collecting random trinkets. so much so, that sometimes i put 100+ hours into a game without ever finishing it.

My 2¢: The core idea of open world has always been "I want to see what's on the other side of that mountain over there" - but that's not a genre, it's a setting. You can use that setting as the basis of an exploration/"adventure" game (Outer Wilds), an RPG (Skyrim), a platformer (Super Mario Odyssey), or even a puzzle game (The Pathless), but "open world" is not the genre by itself. It may simply be the case that trying to judge all these disparate titles by the same standard is always going to leave us disappointed in one game or another, no matter how you slice it. At the same time, you make a valid point: Why bother setting something in an open world if the average player is just going to ignore it? The choice of setting is still a fundamental part of the design process, and developers would do well to seriously consider how an open world could interact with their core gameplay loop(s), as well as whether it's really worth the substantial time and effort which it takes to create such a huge playable area.

as you said "save Zelda" sounds like an immediate objective, that is how i played twilight princess for example, you dont know if saving zelda will take 10 hours or 100 hours, while "defeat Ganon" really sounds like "finish the game" which is obviously not something players will want to do immediately after the start of the game, unless they are speed runners

Ghost of Tsushima did side quests right, even the smaller ones. Pretty much all side quests revolved around helping people displaced by war, which is the central theme of the game. And some of the core side quests take it a bit further by revealing how the enemy can sometimes be someone close to you.

Rdr2 works here because the missions are presented often without urgency, and its natural to let some days pass inbetween many of the missions. Also many of the sidequest have impact on the gameplay and change the outcome of specific scenes and ways thing happens for Arthur, and makes for interesting conversations, and i think thats somehthing that intrigues alot of players into exploring as much as possible. Partly also because they want to experience the world with Arthur, with all his comments and funny interactions around. Another point is that this is a realistic game, the world doesnt revolve around Arthur, he isnt the chosen one or anything like that. He's just a "normal" guy.

The messed up sense of urgency was the worst for me in Dying Light. The other characters are infected and URGENTLY need the antidote. At best they have maybe a day or two left to before people start dying. This stayed the same throughout most of the story, so I always felt like I didn't have any time to engage in side activities. I had to go from story quest to story quest because if I didn't it felt like time would run out and all my allies would die

Ghost of Tsushima: Save your uncle at the castle Razbuten: Ok, I am here Ghost of Tsushima: Ok, but you are facing overwhelming forces Razbuten: That's the best odds I have in years!

This is why I love Sable! The whole objective is to just explore and find your place in the world. Every "side quest" is character growth and enforces the themes.

I’m reminded of one of my first and favorite truly open world games, Morrowind. Technically you could go after the final boss straight off the boat, though you’d have a hard time without either leveling up or using exploits. There was no sense of urgency in the main quest, and you were actually encouraged to go out and adventure, so it felt natural to do so.

As a geologist the best open world I've played is death stranding, despite the rain heavily affecting the soil degradation , its the only game i've seen that the geologic formation actually makes sense and its not only there as a substitute to invisible walls (sorry english is not my first language)

Honestly the intrigue of open worlds is the world itself, the exploration is key to making it work, if the player has a reason to go over every hill and look under every rock because the world itself is Interesting and fun to explore, you've nailed it. Adversely, if you have a large area with very little to actually experience within the world you may as well be playing a standard linear map game with Interactive loading screens (walking from objective to objective)

I liked how Enderal handled this by giving you periods where other characters were taking over the Main Quest and told you to do other things in the meantime. Its a simple thing but it gives the player the feeling of "this urgent matter is being handled, but I can take a break from it". That approach would already help a lot with the classic "the world is ending like, tomorrow" kinda story. I do think studios kinda force Open Worlds into their games just because it sells better, so many of them dont gain anything but empty hours of repetetive side quests from having an open world.

Honestly, exploring or not, I generally just appreciate the freedom, makes the world feel more immersive to me.

Although not an open-world game, yooka-laylee and the impossible lair does almost exactly what you recommended ghost of tsushima do, you can tackle the final level of yooka-laylee at any point, but it is so difficult that it is almost impossible to beat it without the extra lives you get from completing levels.

I felt the biggest "load off" the sense of urgency in Breath of the Wild was not only the shift in objective, but the shift from an active world to a passive one. Usually, if you don't rescue Zelda immediately, that comes with something additional that you're trying to prevent (be it greater harm to Zelda herself, or some apocalyptic event). In Breath of the Wild, that damage is already done. Narratively, the world won't get any worse if you don't immediately stop Ganon, so you're implicitly encouraged to take your time to do things right this time. You can even kind of see the difference within the same game with the cases of the Divine Beasts. If you go to Death Mountain, the Gorons face an active crisis with their Beast and worsening eruptions. Their homes and livelihood are under active threat, and once I entered the area, I didn't want to leave until that was resolved. When you leave Death Mountain again, the world is just... as it is, suffering passively, and it's easy to imagine the land getting no better or worse if you left it alone another hundred years.

I think that's one of the best parts about Elden Ring. They integrated the main story and side stories so well with the overall open world, and nothing really feels out of place.