Open world games

[dfzx]

Many modern games are based on the "open world" concept, where the player enters a world and can head off in any direction they like, solving whichever puzzles or challenges they like in any order. It could be argued that the Spectrum gave us some of the very earliest open world games, like Jet Set Willy, for example. Is it fair to compare JSW to Grand Theft Auto or Far Cry? Can we reasonably draw the history of the modern mega franchises back to the early days of the Spectrum?

What's your favourite open world game and why?

[Morkin]

Speccy games that have given me the same 'vibe' as modern open-world games:

- Out of the Shadows
- Elite (obviously)

[Juan F. Ramirez]

Agree with Elite, plus:

Lords of Midnight
Doomdark's Revenge
Shadow of the Unicorn
Tir Na Nog
Dun Darach

[uglifruit]

I think Contact Sam Cruise might sit within this, in feeling like a world (albeit a small one) you were open to do whatever you chose in. Back2Skool also felt similar (obviously) and the autonomy of the n.p.c.s helps that 'open world' feel, I'd argue.

[Ersh]

The Hobbit.
Turbo Esprit.

[stupidget]

Bards Tale.

[akeley]

Is it fair to compare JSW to Grand Theft Auto or Far Cry? Can we reasonably draw the history of the modern mega franchises back to the early days of the Spectrum?

I think it's a bit of a stretch to make this connection, at least if we would solely credit the ZX. "Open worlds" have already been created before its time.

On ZX Spectrum, for me the best ones would be the aforementioned Turbo Esprit & Lords Of Midnight, and also Ant Attack and Mercenary/Damocles. These are more of the "worlds", or at least "areas" because otherwise there are countless "open" games on Spectrum, but to me they're more of open castles (Knight Lore/Castle Master), houses (JSW) or tenement blocks (Movie).

[animaal]

Where time stood still?

[Nienn Heskil]

There are many Spectrum games with a huge world and a number of tasks you're free to complete in any order. Even something like Starquake might qualify, depending on how you look at it.

It's always a bit ironic to read some gaming history articles where aspects such as this are often presented as big & historical leaps of sorts, perhaps attributed to the likes of Nintendo or somesuch, whereas we know most of this has been around since at least the 80s, or earlier. (Also: 'destructible terrain', 'procedurally generated levels'... )

[clebin]

Off the top of my head, these are some of the criteria I'd use for a true open-world game:

* A wide variety of things to do which don't necessarily contribute to completing the game
* Life going on around you - independent characters doing their own thing
* A sense of place and a "believable" game-world to inhabit and explore (believable rather than real - it could still be a sci-fi or fantasy setting, like The Elder Scrolls. That still makes sense as a world, despite the dragons and magic and whatnot)
* A sense of time and there being a structure to how time passes - eg. day/night cycles
* The game doesn't force you to try and follow a linear plot

I think you need to hit at least a few of those to be a true open-world game, but Skool Daze and Back 2 Skool just completely nail every single one IMO. I sometimes play Back 2 Skool with my daughter and I used to play it with my nephews. There's no sense that it's an old game or that anything needs to be forgiven - the sense of wonder and possibility for them is exactly the same as in any modern "sandbox" game. It just blows my mind.

Other games I'd include:

Elite
The Great Escape
Turbo Esprit (could GTA ever have happened without Turbo Esprit?)

To a lesser extent:

Contact Sam Cruise
Andy Capp
Frankie Goes To Hollywood
Everyone's A Wally
Where Time Stood Still
Dun Darach, Tir Na Nog? (I haven't played them enough to know)

[ketmar]

Explorer, anyone? ;-)

[PQR]

– Tau Ceti
– Starglider

[Juan F. Ramirez]

Explorer, anyone?

Seems interesting, but unfortunately I discovered late, when the game files were not available...

[Alessandro]

Any grand strategy/management game, such as 1984, Formula 1, football/rugby/etc. management simulators or Ad Lunam and Ad Lunam Plus

Dictator could also be considered but I never liked it that much - it feels like you must do the same things over and over in order to stay in power as long as possible, since sooner or later you will be toppled. Not very "open" in the end.

[catmeows]

I'm quite sceptic about most of the titles mentioned in this thread. Elite is iconic example of open world game but the rest hardly fits definition of open world. They are either too small or too linear or too limited/focused. I'm not saying Back2Skool is bad game but it misses something like additional 256KB of content. Same for Lords od Midnight, map is big but you really can't say - screw the Doomdark, next few hours I'm going to wander Forest od Shadows, ocassionaly helping locals.
As I see it, 8-bit era produced just two true open world games: Elite and Pirates! There is lot of good games that somehow adapts mechanics from open world games but they are not open world games and most important - they really don't want to be open world games.

[clebin]

I'm quite sceptic about most of the titles mentioned in this thread. Elite is iconic example of open world game but the rest hardly fits definition of open world. They are either too small or too linear or too limited/focused. I'm not saying Back2Skool is bad game but it misses something like additional 256KB of content.

That's interesting - what would you add to my criteria that rules out Back 2 Skool?

256k of content seems quite arbitrary when there's already an absolute ton of fun stuff to do. Open-world games also get called "sandbox" games, which I think fits Back 2 Skool to a tee. Rockstar's Bully owes a huge amount to Skool Daze and Back 2 Skool.

[akeley]

Elite is iconic example of open world game but the rest hardly fits definition of open world. They are either too small or too linear or too limited/focused. I'm not saying Back2Skool is bad game but it misses something like additional 256KB of content. Same for Lords od Midnight, map is big but you really can't say - screw the Doomdark, next few hours I'm going to wander Forest od Shadows, ocassionaly helping locals.

That's a little bit unfair, given the 48Kb LoM had, plus being focused does not cancel its open-worldness. It's not like you can do anything you want in Elite either. I think this is straying more into "sandbox" definition, but not every open world has to be one.

[catmeows]

I'm quite sceptic about most of the titles mentioned in this thread. Elite is iconic example of open world game but the rest hardly fits definition of open world. They are either too small or too linear or too limited/focused. I'm not saying Back2Skool is bad game but it misses something like additional 256KB of content.

That's interesting - what would you add to my criteria that rules out Back 2 Skool?

256k of content seems quite arbitrary when there's already an absolute ton of fun stuff to do. Open-world games also get called "sandbox" games, which I think fits Back 2 Skool to a tee. Rockstar's Bully owes a huge amount to Skool Daze and Back 2 Skool.

Eric is always in school, always in same role. He cannot skip school and go throw bottles on back wall of local shop. He can't go to steal sweeties in mall. And he can't help himself and be good guy for a while. He really can't differ between teachers. He cannot hate math teacher, quite like manual work lessons because he Is good at it and he cannot help ms. Teacher because he fascinated by her breast. For example. So yes, 256KB is quite arbitrary but considering that you can fit school in 40KB, 6 times more could be good aproximate of a world how it is seen by a boy on small town.

[catmeows]

Elite is iconic example of open world game but the rest hardly fits definition of open world. They are either too small or too linear or too limited/focused. I'm not saying Back2Skool is bad game but it misses something like additional 256KB of content. Same for Lords od Midnight, map is big but you really can't say - screw the Doomdark, next few hours I'm going to wander Forest od Shadows, ocassionaly helping locals.

That's a little bit unfair, given the 48Kb LoM had, plus being focused does not cancel its open-worldness. It's not like you can do anything you want in Elite either. I think this is straying more into "sandbox" definition, but not every open world has to be one.

Well, Tranz Am covers whole USA, many strategy games cover big portion of Europe but it doesn't make them open world games, I think.
You need big map and some autonomy to choose role or faction and have ability to switch between them at will and ad hoc to have open world game. At least as I understand the 'open world game' term.
Has to say I have not a degree from computer game theory so I can be completely wrong.

[clebin]

Eric is always in school, always in same role... And he can't help himself and be good guy for a while. He really can't differ between teachers. He cannot hate math teacher...

I don’t see that. Eric can absolutely be good boy and go to all his lessons and try to stay out of trouble. It’s still fun in its own way. Or he can be anti-establishment and drop stink bombs or catapult the teachers. He could be a bully and beat up the younger kids, or have the morals to only stand up to Angelface. He could decide to dislike one teacher and always catapult them over the others - you could even literally give that teacher the name of your mosted hated teacher at school at the beginning of the game. I think you do have lots of choices over what character to be.

I don’t think your reasoning can be boiled down into a workable definition. These games don’t have to be as big as modern examples. If a game is set in the first person and requires you to move around shoot things, it’s a 1st person shooter whether it’s on the ZX81 or PS4. All IMHO of course!

[Morkin]

One criterion I would consider when someone talks about 'open world' is that quests aren't time-bound - you can completely ignore them to go and do lots of other things instead. Hence the Final Fantasy joke "we need to hurry to xyz and save the world... there isn't much time" - "OK, but first I'm going to breed and race Chocobos for a bit..."

When I first played the Skool games I did a lot just wandering around, going to lessons, firing catapult at teachers etc. The main game goal isn't time-bound, but there are time-restriction elements in the form of lessons, so I'm not completely sure it'd fit my own definition. But other people might not have the same criterion, so it could.

...So basically what I'm saying is that I'm on the fence a bit...

I was originally going to suggest Turbo Esprit, but I couldn't remember if capturing the (main) drug car was time-specific or not (I remember it could get away when you were chasing ig).

[clebin]

When I first played the Skool games I did a lot just wandering around, going to lessons, firing catapult at teachers etc. The main game goal isn't time-bound, but there are time-restriction elements in the form of lessons, so I'm not completely sure it'd fit my own definition. But other people might not have the same criterion, so it could.

Me too. I think that falls into what I was saying about having a “structure” to the passing of time. So in a game like Skyrim that might be the day/night cycle. At night time, shops are closed and people are at home. NPCs all have their daily routines to follow.

In Back 2 Skool, you have the lessons or you have playtime where all the teacher are wandering around, Mr Whacker is doing his patrol, the school gates are open and so on. When you look at it like that, they’re pretty similar.

[catmeows]

Eric is always in school, always in same role...

I don’t see that. Eric can absolutely be good boy (...)These games don’t have to be as big as modern examples.

Good arguments. I stand corrected. For me it is still quite border case but I admit you may be right.

[clebin]

Good arguments. I stand corrected. For me it is still quite border case but I admit you may be right.

Thanks catmeows - I think that might be the first time that's happened to me on the internet! I might well up in a minute.

[Joefish]

I think you can draw a distinction between 'sandbox' and 'open-world' games as stages of evolution.

The Skool games,Turbo Esprit, maybe The Great Escape, and others are early examples of the 'sandbox' type of gaming, that really hit their stride with the first top-down Grand Theft Auto. You can go wherever you want to, whenever you want (aside from locked areas), and other characters react to you in context. You're free to follow the game's objectives, just wander, or even act against the objectives if you like. But you're confined to a specific gaming area where the all the objectives can be met. These themselves are an evolution of flip-screen or scrolling arcade-adventures where again you were free to go back and forth over an environment larger than the screen. And the origin of that would be Adventure on the Atari, or really you're getting back to the principles of D&D and text adventures, just rendered in real-time with arcade-style graphics.

This evolved into what's now called 'open-world' as the technology improved to give you excessive and often irrelevant playing areas. By which I mean spaces that haven't been designed as a necessary part of persuing the games objectives, but you're free to explore them anyway. And you may find things to do, but they're not all critical to the game's completion. Elite is the obvious example, as procedural generation helps produce such vast areas, including things to do when you get there. The real trick with modern systems is to seamlessly integrate the procedurally-generated landscapes with specifically designed gameplay features (such as military compounds or castles set in a range of mountains). Either that or have huge teams of designers and tons of storage space to produce all the minor elements. And that coming up with convincing procedurally-generated narrative or side-quest issueing still seems a long way off.