Grand Theft Auto V has two modes of play: Single-player and Multi-player.
In the single-player mode, the player puts themselves in the shoes of one of three characters to progress through a story in the game world of Los Santos, a fictionalized recreation of Los Angeles. In the multi-player mode, the player creates their own character and is thrown into the same game world - but has no requisite story to follow and can muck about at their leisure. There are plenty of missions, quests, or mini-games that the player can partake in - from co-operative heists to a round of golf. It's almost like an alternate reality game in the Grand Theft Auto universe.
I've never payed much attention to the single-player version of the game outside of a little Chiliad Mystery hunting... but I picked up a copy when I realized I was able to make a character as myself and goof off in the game world. Having lived in LA at one point in my life, it was fun to see the miniature fictionalized version and landmarks that paralleled my real life memories. This was the most appealing aspect to me - driving around in whatever car I wanted, living a reckless life without consequences, and playing my own "how long can I survive with three stars mini-game" was the ultimate in escapism for me.
This is what I enjoy in games: the ability to play "my way." If you take a gander at my previous posts, you'll see I am a fan of Dark Souls and Fallout - two series that have a story and plot, but mostly allow the player to play their own way with little to no time constraints and not very many required actions. In Fallout 4, one of my biggest turn-offs was the female reporter whose name escapes me or has been purposefully blocked from memory because of how much I disliked her character. Her involvement felt so forced from the very moment she was introduced and when the game wouldn't let me kill her, I disliked it even more. In a game that otherwise allows so much freedom, I saw this and the other "immortal NPCs" as a serious detriment to my escapism and immersion.
In Dark Souls, especially the first game of the series - you can slay almost every single NPC, with the only exception I can think of being Frampt - who you can instead perturb and otherwise remove him from your experience. "Taking out" these NPCs has risk and reward - some have unique items you can obtain by killing them, but by not doing so one can recruit them for help or access special quests later in the game. This feels a lot more free, and certainly creates more immersion than the forced immortality of the Fallout characters.
Also in the Dark Souls world, one can engage in a near-endless and quite unique multiplayer environment - where players have the ability to join another person's game either to hunt them down or help them out. I have even joined players to play another makeshift mini-game of my own by playing soccer (or football) with another player in the Darkroot Garden Forest using the giant mushroom's ragdoll body as a ball. I've had prism stone disco dance parties. I've been an all elusive troll, hiding with the chameleon spell and driving others to the brink of madness. My options have felt near unlimited.
This mentality is what I will always enjoy most in any game I play - in one word, freedom. It is probably why I tend to enjoy multiplayer games the most. There are objectives, sure, but usually not a forced plot - multiplayer games become "the most dangerous game" or a tribunal of players pitting themselves against each other with a set of rules. Games like chess, where each player has a vast amount of moves or options tend to be more appealing than games like World of Tanks, where "buying in" or having more experience and unlocked items stacks the odds against players who are playing for free or are just starting. The latter applies to some aspects of Call of Duty and even Battlefield - where unlocked items give veteran players an advantage; therefore, I'll always be more drawn to games that keep the odds even no matter the player's experience level or hours logged. Quake comes to mind as a good example of a brand new player being able to defeat someone with more playtime - although muscle memory, knowing mechanics, and learning curves will generally favor the veteran.
To promote discussion, what do you like or dislike about open worlds or pseudu-open worlds? Do you fancy the same freedoms I do or do you like to stay guided by a story? I'll leave you with another video I made; here I showcase of some of the freedoms in the Battlefield series and also show examples of how knowing the mechanics well gives me an advantage as a player.
I've always been attracted more to games where you can do what you want. I'm currently playing gta5. Just bought a Wharehouse to store my stolen vehicule. It's awesome
Open world game are (and will be) a huge thing for a looong time, exactly because of the reason that they give you the freedom to play the game in a way you want to play it in.
Great post! Would you mind if I included it in today's "best of gaming"?
Any time! I plan to focus mostly on gaming and gamedev content.