Open world is a term for video games where a player can move freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives, as opposed to other computer games that have a more linear structure.[1][2] Open world and free-roaming suggest the absence of artificial barriers, in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. Generally open world games still enforce many restrictions in the game environment, either because of absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity.[3] Examples of high level of autonomy in computer games can be found in MMORPG or in other games adhering to the "Open world concept". Their main appeal is they provide a simulated reality and allow players to develop their character and its behavior in the direction of their choosing. In these cases, there is often no concrete goal or end to the game. There are limitations to this autonomy through the rules of the simulation and its limitations. But the direction of gameplay may or may not rely ultimately upon the decision of the player, as in some cases this can be completely controllable by the player, the type depends on the requirements and availabilities of the game.[4]

Gameplay and design
An open world is a level or game designed as a nonlinear, open areas with many ways to reach an objective.[5] Some games are designed with both traditional and open world levels.[6] An open world facilitates greater exploration than a series of smaller levels,[3] or a level with more linear challenges.[7] Reviewers have judged the quality of an open world based on whether there are interesting ways for the player to interact with the broader level when they ignore their main objective.[7] Some games actually use real settings to model an open world, such as New York City.[8]

A major design challenge is to balance the freedom of an open world with the structure of a dramatic storyline.[9] Since players may perform actions that the game designer did not expect,[10] the game's writers must find creative ways to impose a storyline on the player without interfering with their freedom.[11] As such, games with open worlds will sometimes break the game's story into a series of missions, or have a much simpler storyline altogether.[12] Other games instead offer side-missions to the player that do not disrupt the main storyline.[13] Most open world games make the character a blank slate that players can project their own thoughts onto, although several games such as Landstalker: The Treasures of King Nole offer more character development and dialogue.[3] Writing in 2005, David Braben described the narrative structure of current videogames as "little different to the stories of those Harold Lloyd films of the 1920s", and considered genuinely open-ended stories to be the "Holy Grail we are looking for in fifth generation gaming".[14]

Games with open worlds typically give players infinite lives or continues, although games like Blaster Master force the player to start from the beginning should they die too many times.[3] There is also a risk that players may get lost as they explore an open world; thus designers sometimes try to break the open world into manageable sections.[15]

Thanks for the comment. I have to point out though that Wikipedia is not the authority on what an open-world has to be.

Just because you can't free roam on planets "looking for monsters" doesn't mean a game isn't open world. Dust's primary role is, and should always be as an FPS. Open-world in Dust could simply mean choosing to fight different battles, in different places, for different factions, and that the results of these battles would effect the overall big picture.




In short: The term 'Open World' isn't a cookie cutter definition that works exactly the same in every game just because Wikipedia has an article on it.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing a lot of coherence in your posts... some of your paragraphs suggest you are agreeing and disagreeing with me at the same time. Maybe you can elaborate a bit more.

Some specifics would be nice: Such as what exactly is it you are suggesting, and what exactly do you disagree with?


A lot of your paragraphs seem to be pointing out different reasons why dust is currently 'not' Open World... which I agree with, and which was the entire point of this post, and why I suggested things in the OP to help give the player different choices.