>>718244348
It still could be a decent open world, if the open world was intricate and detailed.
Why does open world need to mean "empty" nowadays? To me, it just means more choices, strategies and directions to go in than a more linear game.
Just have a smaller scale if it's just too much to handle. As long as it doesn't compromise the gameplay it's fine. Sometimes it adds gameplay by forcing the player to overcome distance quickly. Now as long as it's not just going past empty nothing (like in real life) this can be a good thing. As long as there's something to detour with and obstacles to overcome.
I kinda get what Kojima is doing with DS and DS2, it's just the obstacles, gamplay to overcome them and payoff is kinda eh at times. Then he just has it become a mere "get to the objective, pick up something, return to start point" thing which is not that good to me. What it could be in MGS is something like getting enough intelligence to find out what the real objectives and targets should be and correspondence with npcs in the game potentially in a way that requires more than just collecting bananas.
Like how real infiltration and subversion is a bit. Then you can apply military strats of subversion and opsec to manipulate your NPCs and change your own strategy with where to go to next. Instead that constantly happens in the background of these games and all games really. Open world shouldn't mean just open spaces, it should mean open opportunities and strategies. The goal should be to break the game apart.
For some reason, most gamers will hate that (to the point of being mad that people worked around intended gameplay) and I hate them for being that way. That's why games have stagnated for years. Breaking the game should be the game. Open world to me should have that and it doesn't. It's empty instead.
