I wouldn't say that it's making games worse. It's just that I can count the number of open-world games that I have enjoyed on one hand. I'm fine with just a new GTA game every decade or so. Zelda did it well, although, what do you even do after that besides reuse the map for a sequel, which they've already done? Or in GTA's case, pump out online content continuously, and print money. I preferred GTA 4, where they created 2 new narratives to play through on the same map, but I'm sure that was less lucrative. Then you have whatever Bethesda craps out any given year.
Personally, I enjoy a good sandbox game like Mario 64, or Hitman 1/2/3, or a game like Hollow Knight, while not technically an open world game, scratches the same itches.
They just cost too much time and money to do well.
> Then you have whatever Bethesda craps out any given year.
I'll just mention that a big complaint about Starfield was that instead of crafting an open-world as they did in previous games, they created small hubs coupled with barren and repetitive procedurally generated planets.
Starfield fell on several levels, including gameplay mechanics, mediocre story, things to do, and raw content. Originally it was going to be a much smaller gameplay area which theoretically would have better content. FO76 is proof Bethesda can recover though because that was in a way worse state than Starfield at launch. But if the next Starfield DLC is a flop like the first one, I wouldn't hold my breath that it gets worked on further. The UE5 remaster of Oblivion (which is excellent) is proof they can extract more revenue from a UE5 Morrowind, Fallout, or Skyrim while working on TES6.
Really my only Bethesda interest is Fallout games. I loved Fallout 4 despite its issues. I'm not a big RPG nerd, so the lack of RPG elements didn't bother me too much. It's more the technical issues. It's also the graphics. If you don't want to put resources into ultra detailed graphics, you have to use a less demanding art style like Nintendo does.
But yeah, as far as Starfield goes, I heard how barren everything was and decided I should just wait until maybe they make it better in a few years.
> If you don't want to put resources into ultra detailed graphics, you have to use a less demanding art style like Nintendo does.
I agree in general, but just wanted to offer one counter-example. The Axis Unseen [0] is a well-received indie game created by just one person (Nate Purkeypile, notably a Bethesda veteran [1]), which looks incredible, utilizing Unreal Engine 5 geometry features with almost no textures.
> But yeah, as far as Starfield goes, I heard how barren everything was and decided I should just wait until maybe they make it better in a few years.
That’s the right call IMO. As a huge Bethesda fan, it was a massive let down. Honestly I think it’s not recoverable. They made exploration the core of the game, but the procedural generation makes everything feel samey, repetitive, and pointless. They discarded the environmental storytelling that made their previous games so fun.
I do think modern games can absolutely create incredible open worlds, even with procedural generation. That’s more or less what Valheim is doing, to great effect. Bethesda just fell down on the job.
I'm curious about the new Mario Kart too. As for Zelda, if they want to do open world again, I think they need to leave Hyrule. Other Zelda games have done it. That, or drastically change it, like they did for Wind Waker.
The research to compress Bolivia into a map was extraordinary. The sense of place as you play through is so strong, you can see a screenshot years later and know exactly where it was shot.
The "game loop" of the first release was perhaps simplistic*, but by Fallen Ghosts the formula drew on what they learned from Breakpoint (a failed open world but with better game play feel).
Nearly a decade later, Wildlands retains its appeal.
To your "too much time and money to do well", this did take a lot of work.
Weirdly, for Breakpoint Ubisoft said: Well, in Wildlands we made the mistake of designing the world, then putting stories in it. So the pacing was off, you could spend too much time exploring without an encounter, or have too many encounters all in a cluster. So in Breakpoint, we designed game encounters, and made sure the world spaced them out well, it's so much better. In players' view, for the world/map design, they were wrong.
* If you run and gun, you miss the scenario design effort they put in. Any given scenario was designed to enable strategic stealth, tactical assault, heavy or light, rewarding teams that played co-op and talked through a plan before going in. This is where Wildlands really shines, 4 people on headsets playing deliberately, "slow is smooth and smooth is fast".
Personally, I enjoy a good sandbox game like Mario 64, or Hitman 1/2/3, or a game like Hollow Knight, while not technically an open world game, scratches the same itches.
They just cost too much time and money to do well.