#babdi

As a person who's not in the industry and has never been yet in a development environment, and so has mainly just seen things from a player perspective:

Many, MANY, years ago was understood that if you wanted to give the idea of a big place, a big city, a big valley, a big landscape in general, OF COURSE you wouldn't just make it 1:1 in size and just put it there, it would be a waste of resources, time, effort, all for something that's needed only to convey a sense of scale and nothing else. Instead you would put some 2d images in the distance, an elaborate skybox, maybe some 3d more detailed object and bam, you had a big scenery, though fake. if it was a city, you would just put a wagon with fruit and vegetables, or a car, in front of a road that extends and bam, you have the image of a city that extends beyond the corners of the playable map.

Now more than ever instead there is this toxic obsession with "if the player sees it, then it must be explored, or have an active gameplay purpose", and a general perceived distaste for the concept of creating illusion, while going full simulation.

Now, to clarify: this is not a condemnation of all modern games, this is mainly a thing in AAA and AA games, also i'm not blaming any developers (i don't know how a game is made, how much pressure from above you have, how this might be the only way to keep the boat afloat in terms of sales and marketing), and also i can clearly see that this is not a dead concept; the contrary even! There are a lot of modern (though indie) games that take advantage of limited visibility to convey scale, or complexity, guiding the player imagination but leaving it work by itself. The success of games like Iron lung i think speaks volume about it.

The fact is, even among AAA games i liked and had high hopes for, i can't avoid to be a little sad about how bloated they are with this mentality. The two games that sparked these thoughts are mainly elden ring and tears of the kingdom.

In TotK case, i was sad to see how little they learned from BotW, at least in this regard; instead of closing in on the freedom of the predecessor to give a different, more intense and story driven experience, they doubled down on the original formula and expanded even more. Instead of removing, or readapting, the useless empty space in hyrule, the created even more empty space somehow, and filled it with junk that bloats everything even more. I like this formula, don't get me wrong, just...more often than what i wanted to in both games i found myself on the edge of a cliff, on the backside of a mountain, in a small hole, with nothing there and nothing particularly interesting to see or get, and i thought "why am i here, why am i allowed to be here, why isn't this just background seen from a distance"

In elden ring though i think there is the perfect, more poignant example: Leyndell. The first time i was inside the walls and saw the city, i was awestruck. it was beutiful, intricate, interesting, full of peculiar places. i couldn't wait to explore it all and for once in that game i wasn't overwhelmed with "toomanythingstodotoomanyplacestogo"itis, because i wanted to see it all. i love cities, especially old and ancient ones, love exploring them, lose myself in small streets and alleys. i was genuinelly amazed by the fact that it was completely explorable, and absolutely happy for it. After i've seen it all though, it hit me: ...it's a really small city. like, it's big from a player perspective, there is a lot to do and explore. but it's a pretty small city. I live near Lucca, in Tuscany, so i have a pretty good reference to judge it on, and i think (roughly and without measures, have mercy uhuh) Leyndell and Lucca are nearly the same size, Lucca might be bigger infact uhuh. And even if it's not and Lyndell is bigger, still, after seeing it all it FEELS small. because you've seen it all. Compare Leyndell to Anor Londo instead, and tell me which one of the two FEELS like a gigantic, enormous capital, full of streets, palaces and places for people; and of Anor Londo you only explore like a handful of rooftops uhuh. This might be just a sensation of mine, but the fact the capital of the biggest game Fromsoft has made to date feels smaller than in DS1 where you were dramatically more limited in where you could go....well, that to me is a failure of environment design, at least on an artistic side, in regar to setting up the atmosphere, not in regard to gameplay.

Do i mean with this that open world are always bad, that you should always be limited in where you can go? absolutely not! i love having freedom of exploration, and i like the idea that i can go where i can see! i just wish going forward that developers with the resources to do big projects like these are given the freedom, and the guidance, to guide the players more, to build rails on which our explosive passion of playing can be directed on without letting die out on a rock in the middle of nowhere that you're standing on for no reason. A good example for this i feel is outer wilds! you're free to go where you want, but you are limited by what there actually is to explore, plus the central gimmick. also, all there is to explore is interesting and meaningful, without collectables!

Also, i'm not criticizing empty space at all even. I recently played BABDI, and that is a masterful example of empty, "meaningless" space that is there for a reason, which is the atmosphere of the game. the fact you can explore almost all of the city while there is almost nothing interesting to discover aside from few things, contributes a ton the overall atmosphere.