I wonder if the increasing "lifelessness" of videogames is not only caused by the same open-world ubisoft-style formula and microtransactions, but by increasing graphical fidelity while having extremely static environments in these games.
The game world should feel like an actual world and not a diorama with extra steps.
The real world is at the same time insanely detailed and also not nearly as "dense" as a videogame world.
Insanely detailed because literally every pebble is unique and can be interacted with in a huge variety of way. Just on my desk at the moment I have over 20 different objects, all with different physical attributes. Some could be set on fire, some can contain liquids, some are purely decorative, some are hinged, some contain electronics, etc etc etc.
At the same time, there is very little in my house that a videogame protagonist would actually want to interact with. I live in a town with several thousand homes and small businesses that similarly have very little to offer in the usual videogame sense. Even in fairly large open worlds like The Witcher 3, it's often not even 5 minutes on horseback between towns and even small hamlets will have at least several quests and/or some vendors. Just to get to the next town in the real world would take over an hour on horseback, and that town would be just as boring as mine to a videogame character.
TL;DR You don't actually want a videogame world to be like the real world, there is not enough to do in the real world that you would want to do in a videogame.
Hogwarts Legacy completely averts this trope. It's probably worth a play.
I think it's primarily successful because of its use of uses smaller, mostly linear environments. It's also swath with plenty of shaders & animations that react or trigger on player position—there's always multiple things happening on screen, not just one idly spinning fan off in a corner somewhere.
burglins|2 years ago
The game world should feel like an actual world and not a diorama with extra steps.
WJW|2 years ago
Insanely detailed because literally every pebble is unique and can be interacted with in a huge variety of way. Just on my desk at the moment I have over 20 different objects, all with different physical attributes. Some could be set on fire, some can contain liquids, some are purely decorative, some are hinged, some contain electronics, etc etc etc.
At the same time, there is very little in my house that a videogame protagonist would actually want to interact with. I live in a town with several thousand homes and small businesses that similarly have very little to offer in the usual videogame sense. Even in fairly large open worlds like The Witcher 3, it's often not even 5 minutes on horseback between towns and even small hamlets will have at least several quests and/or some vendors. Just to get to the next town in the real world would take over an hour on horseback, and that town would be just as boring as mine to a videogame character.
TL;DR You don't actually want a videogame world to be like the real world, there is not enough to do in the real world that you would want to do in a videogame.
cptcobalt|2 years ago
I think it's primarily successful because of its use of uses smaller, mostly linear environments. It's also swath with plenty of shaders & animations that react or trigger on player position—there's always multiple things happening on screen, not just one idly spinning fan off in a corner somewhere.
MattRix|2 years ago