• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Searching for meaning in open worlds: when does filler stop being filler?

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
I see this discussion crop up a lot recently, the "it's just filler/fetchquests/tower climbing/repetitive content" argument used a lot when discussing the overarching design and content of open world games and how said content is subjectively resonating with individuals. I myself am guilty of this, particularly when the topic of Ubisoft comes up and how much I do (or in most cases don't) enjoy engaging with their open worlds.

Lately I've been asking myself what exactly it is that I do not like. For example while I'll freely point to the checklisty points-of-interest in a game like Skyrim or Assassin's Creed as repetitive, workman-like box ticking under the guise of searching out content I perceive as meaningless and unrewarding, Wild Hunt's similar points-of-interest (admittedly toggleable) never caused issue despite essentially being highly repetitive in game design variety. Perhaps a better example is Just Cause 3; while I'll scoff at climbing towers and whatnot in Assassin's Creed, likening the activity to a chore, aimlessly wandering and blowing up military bases/plants still hasn't gotten old despite the rewards usually trivial and the content itself arguably very repetitive.

By extension of this I see criticism of many open worlds, across the spectrum of genres and franchises, of being guilty of not using their open worlds correctly, repetitive content, meaningless objectives, or more potentially "filler".

And I have to ask myself: at what point is content actually filler? Do we consider the core game systems in, say, a stealth game or a first person shooter, in which we master game systems in order to get from A-to-B, as "filler"? Of course not. In 'Souls do we consider the stretches between bosses and the challenges they bring as filler? Not at all, it's the game design in itself.

Why are open worlds so frequently subject to this criticism, when it is often the heart of the design itself? In a game like Just Cause 3, for example, the core game systems revolve around successfully and methodically demolishing key weaknesses at military points-of-interest. That is literally the objective of the game, to seek these out and destroy them, as a means of both enjoying the game and progressing through it. Similarly for Assassin's Creed, the objective is to utilise and master the parkour system to traverse points-of-interest and claim them, along with complete assassinations under various conditions. These are the core game systems, the template on which the very essence of enjoyment and fun are built, ergo the reason to play in the first place. The difference being that in an open world title the linearity is exchanged for a greater degree of agency in choosing where to go and order of objectives.

So I guess the topics of conversation I challenge in this thread are:
- In an open world game, how do we define "filler" content from regular content that exists to exemplify the game systems?
- Is critique of "filler" always accurate, or are we mistaking personal disinterest in the core game systems and content as "filler"?
- Which open world games appeal to you, compared to those that don't, and why exactly do you enjoy that content/design more?
- How can open world game design evolve to more intricately weave its content/"filler" into the freeform explorable landmass itself?
 

kavanf1

Member
Filler for me is anything I have to do that doesn't advance the gameplay in any meaningful way. If you're going to have collectibles, give the player something of value for collecting them, don't just make them collect things for the sake of it.

That was one of the things I loved about earlier GTAs that I felt they got really wrong in IV - in older games collecting hidden packages gave you guns and armour at your base, in IV you have to shoot 100 asshole pigeons for no reward whatsoever.

The more effort it takes, the better the reward should be. Anything that fits the bill of busywork designed just to fill an open world with stuff (something Ubisoft games tend to be afflicted by more than most, in my experience) can feck off.

Games that did it well, IMO: GTA III through to SA, Crackdown, Mario games...I'm sleepy now but might think of more tomorrow.
 
It's the dynamic nature of those that do it well.

Take the AC/JC3 example. In Ubisoft's games, it's mainly "go here and press the button, see a little camera pan and increase the counter by 1"

Just Cause's bases can be destroyed in thousands of different ways. If I want to simply nuke the base from a nearby hill, I can. If I want to only destroy things by dragging helicopters into them, I can. If I want to destroy objects by toppling an antenna into them, I can.

Each thing can be tackled a different way when done well. When not done well, it's typically linear without letting you do anything about it.
 

sentry65

Member
part of what makes the Souls games (and Bloodborne) work is the fewer number of people asking you to do stuff. Of course there are people in them that ask you to do stuff, but it's not emphasized as the core gameplay. Even still, they just serve as mild distractions from the main story/gameplay. Open-world games purposely try to make all the side quests out-compete the main quest.

Because open-world games are filled with so many people, it's assumed that a large number of them should be interactive. If you stripped the world of all the excess people, and only put in NPC's when one was required, they'd feel more meaningful by design.

meaningless loot is also a problem, but then again it goes along with having an abundance of meaningless quests.
 

JCX

Member
Filler is something that takes me out of a game's core mechanic without replacing it with an equally interesting mechanic.

Ex. InFamous series: I love the fighting, even when it's huge waves of energy. I play the game to enjoy the powers. When I have to hunt down security cameras (which doesn't really require powers - the central game mechanic), I feel like my time is wasted.
 
Filler is something that takes me out of a game's core mechanic without replacing it with an equally interesting mechanic.

Ex. InFamous series: I love the fighting, even when it's huge waves of energy. I play the game to enjoy the powers. When I have to hunt down security cameras (which doesn't really require powers - the central game mechanic), I feel like my time is wasted.

I would say the total opposite for infamous. That the traversal mechanics are the most realized mechanic of the game, and inline with previous titles made by Suckerpunch, and that the fight mechanics are shitty filler to make the game more main stream when we all know avoiding fights using your powers and rooftops is the best way to play the game.
 
I guess simply enough filler is content that is not unique. If the processes are different each time... i wouldn't think of it as menial processes that do a bad job of exploring the mechanics, but when they are and they require you to adapt i wouldn't think of it as filler. Now whether content that permits being approached in different ways though still not requiring you to explore those options can be considered detrimental... i think it would depend on how much the game urges the player to do it (like the combo ratings in DMC where you need to do different combos to climb style ranks).

Filler is a bad word anyway. Too unspecific, case by case, and unrepresentative of something common to all players. Like, i enjoyed all the side content in DA:I, even though it was relatively superfluous and definitely unnecessary. But i liked the writing (codex entries were great) and i liked the walking (shard hunting rewarded looking for nooks and crannies in the environment) and i liked the fighting (dragons were easy post game but whatevs) so i enjoyed it anyway.

I was expecting this to be about like useless assets of something like all the houses in GTA or empty ruins in The Witcher which don't interface with your inputs.
 
Anything that could take place at any other random point in space or time in a game's length, without any different outcome/impact, is a filler to me, though they can sometimes be excused for the sake of immersion/realism. Example: random pack of enemies that spawn in random locations and drop random loot.

Something else that feels like fillers to me in a way are dungeons that the game repopulates after you've diligently cleared them, see Skyrim.

Also, procedurally-generated content such as Minutemen quests in Fallout 4 don't even try to hide the fact that they are fillers.
 

Lime

Member
This is a really good thread, I wish it had more activity since it gets to the heart of people's dislike / like of the AAA openworld formula.
 

zma1013

Member
Open world games have a large expanse of area that is usually filled to the brim with similar tasks all throughout and having to create so many ultimately means you're going to have to copy and paste those things. They might work just fine as a "one off" kind of situation in a 7 hour game, but when extended to the point where you play 20 of these same kind of missions taking 20 hours just themselves, then it gets repetitive and uninteresting at some point. A fatigue sets in once you cleared a similarly looking cavern full of similarly playing enemies for the 30th time that does nothing to change up the gameplay or challenge the gameplay systems in any meaningful way.

Oh, and there's just some really bad side missions in a lot of open world games. Who thought minefield clearing was fun in Mad Max? Nobody, that's who.
 

braves01

Banned
Open worlds are judged by what you make of them and what you want out of them. It's open world existentialism. Collecting things can be filler or a crucial part of the experience.
 

Bluenoser

Member
part of what makes the Souls games (and Bloodborne) work is the fewer number of people asking you to do stuff. Of course there are people in them that ask you to do stuff, but it's not emphasized as the core gameplay. Even still, they just serve as mild distractions from the main story/gameplay. Open-world games purposely try to make all the side quests out-compete the main quest.

Because open-world games are filled with so many people, it's assumed that a large number of them should be interactive. If you stripped the world of all the excess people, and only put in NPC's when one was required, they'd feel more meaningful by design.

meaningless loot is also a problem, but then again it goes along with having an abundance of meaningless quests.

So much this. They are all guilty of it - Skyrim, Witcher 3, Fallout, you are constantly looting dead bodies for garbage- never anything better than what you already have, unless it's a boss type mob, or a quest reward.

TW3 in particular fucked up their loot system with the OP Witcher gear, which was (for the most part) easily obtainable, and destroyed anything else you find. There was no point in looking for any weapon/armor upgrades due to this.

On the topic of filler content though, I just find I get overwhelmed by it. I know I don't have to do it all, but if there are quests in my log, I must do them- OCD is the name of the game I guess. Its become problematic in that some people like me can't just play the game through, and instead turn it into 100 hours or more because of the compulsive need to do everything. With so many games like this on the market, it's hard to make time for them all.

And fuck GTA with it's useless collectibles.
 

Lijik

Member
It's the dynamic nature of those that do it well.

Take the AC/JC3 example. In Ubisoft's games, it's mainly "go here and press the button, see a little camera pan and increase the counter by 1"

Just Cause's bases can be destroyed in thousands of different ways. If I want to simply nuke the base from a nearby hill, I can. If I want to only destroy things by dragging helicopters into them, I can. If I want to destroy objects by toppling an antenna into them, I can.

Each thing can be tackled a different way when done well. When not done well, it's typically linear without letting you do anything about it.

To build off of this, in an AC game theres usually one way up a location. Not only that but (at least in Rogue which is freshest in my mind), a lot of the viewpoint locations were repeated. If you climbed one fort tower or lighthouse, it can be assured you will eventually run into more with the exact same layout. Having to climb the same Lighthouse with minor differences at best gets tedious really fast. Meanwhile, anytime an eagle view location in Rogue was in nature I enjoyed it a lot more. Climbing up different mountains and trees, even if it was mechanically the same, felt fresher because they weren't clearly a repurposed asset and the paths weren't as obvious.
 

RedSwirl

Junior Member
As simple as it may sound, whether or not it's "fun."

I personally don't find the core gameplay mechanics of Assassin's Creed very fun on their own. Maybe the climbing system felt novel in the original game as a way to easily reach great heights without a vehicle, but after a certain number of games making you climb every reasonably high structure around elicited no intrinsic enjoyment. The same goes for finding treasure chests that are clearly marked on the map, when the fun in other games is in actually figuring out where they are. The combat in Creed games also isn't that good, so continuously repeating it just feels like filler. On the other hand, the system for raiding pirate ships feels unique and did well to borrow elements of the GTA gameplay loop.

On the other hand, clearing out bases in Far Cry is fun despite being repetitive because the somewhat open-ended stealth and action systems interplay in a way that can be continually enjoyable if employed in varying sets of level design. The same goes for doing random missions in Metal Gear Solid V in my opinion. Just Cause let's you blow stuff up in a way that elicits a sense of freedom and probably has a good tactile feel to it too. so continually doing it in different sets of level design is enough to keep it from getting stale.

I actually don't think much in Witcher 3 is repetitive though. A lot of quests have you do a similar sequence of mechanical actions with the Witcher sense, but each one at the very least has its own unique story-based context to it that makes it feel just different enough. The same even applies to random treasure chests, especially if you toggle off points of interest. The only thing in Witcher 3 I would consider "repetitive" are the settlements you liberate from raiders or monsters, and there aren't a huge number of those. Another good example: the Riddler puzzles in Batman Arkham Asylum. Instead of being a collectible each one is a unique puzzle.
 

Lingitiz

Member
Witcher 3 works because there are kind of levels of content in the game. At the lowest level are the dynamic things like outposts, points of interest, and monster nests that feel more like things to stumble upon in the world. Above those are the Witcher contracts which are like somewhere in between a full sidequest and activity. Normally you'll fight a unique monster and a backstory will accompany it, along with some unexpected twists and turns. A step above that are the actual sidequests that are fully fleshed out and tell overarching stories and some even have major world state changing events. Above all of that is the main quest which initially starts out with a simple premise and escalates into a large scale conflict.

The trick here is to never ever let the lowest in the hierarchy be the meat of your game. Dragon Age Inquisition had this problem (and I suspect X does too) , leading to extremely long stretches of time where you would not interact with a single meaningful NPC, and the story would lay at a standstill for a drawn out amount of time. Witcher 3 works so well because there is balance between all of those types of quests. You never feel forced into any one. There is only one real grind point: getting enough gold to sail to Skellige. It's a meaty game but it can either be a lean 30 hour experience, a solid 60 hour game, or potentially 100 if you want to see everything. The smart thing is that all of those are viable options.

Basically, it's fine to have filler "activity" content, but it should never be the driving force of the game. Let it be what it should be, side stuff for people that want more or that they naturally discover, but it should never ever overshadow everything else. The instant you do that it becomes a grind meant only to boast "100+ hours" even though none of it has much substance.
 

tuxfool

Banned
Witcher 3 works because there are kind of levels of content in the game. At the lowest level are the dynamic things like outposts, points of interest, and monster nests that feel more like things to stumble upon in the world. Above those are the Witcher contracts which are like somewhere in between a full sidequest and activity. Normally you'll fight a unique monster and a backstory will accompany it, along with some unexpected twists and turns. A step above that are the actual sidequests that are fully fleshed out and tell overarching stories and some even have major world state changing events. Above all of that is the main quest which initially starts out with a simple premise and escalates into a large scale conflict.

The trick here is to never ever let the lowest in the hierarchy be the meat of your game. Dragon Age Inquisition had this problem (and I suspect X does too) , leading to extremely long stretches of time where you would not interact with a single meaningful NPC, and the story would lay at a standstill for a drawn out amount of time. Witcher 3 works so well because there is balance between all of those types of quests. You never feel forced into any one. There is only one real grind point: getting enough gold to sail to Skellige. It's a meaty game but it can either be a lean 30 hour experience, a solid 60 hour game, or potentially 100 if you want to see everything. The smart thing is that all of those are viable options.

Basically, it's fine to have filler "activity" content, but it should never be the driving force of the game. Let it be what it should be, side stuff for people that want more or that they naturally discover, but it should never ever the focus of the game. The instant you do that it becomes a grind meant only to boast "100+ hours" even though none of it has much substance.

That is a really good description. Though I'd add that The Witcher actually had more levels plus some stuff that doesn't fit neatly into the level boxes.

The bottom level, the Nests etc, then there are the POIs with that actually have a story told via the environment or with notes. Then there are actually the POIs that change dynamically based on something you did, after that there are the contracts, then minor secondary quests and finally you have the major secondary quests that often tie into the main quest in some form.

This kind of fluidity is partly the reason, I think it is looked upon fondly as an open world game. Things like AssCreed and even Just Cause package their events neatly into boxes, you know what you're going to get, however the designers of the game never package any meaning into those tasks as if they're afraid to waste time developing content that not everyone may see.
 

MoonFrog

Member
Open worlds rely on long-term interest and player investment in seeing that interest through. When the content starts to feel like filler, that is when the investment starts feeling like a chore and there is a disconnect between perceived worth of the interest and the investment involved in fulfilling it. The sandbox suddenly becomes an obvious treadmill with a carrot dangling in front and you cannot for the life of you understand how you sunk so much time in before this point.

Another issue in openworlds is when your interests are thwarted, like when, say, a role-player is offered poor quest choices or character abilities. I don't know how many times I've stopped playing a character in, say, Skyrim because my role-playing headspace got messed up and I felt the way the game played out forced me to 'jump the shark.' Similarly, the world can break down around you as the contrived nature of the NPCs, loot acquisition, etc. becomes all too apparent. It is like, you knew it was a game and that is indeed why you got it in the first place but when the immersion is broken, suddenly that huge play place just is a vapid void.
 

Giever

Member
I kind of feel like content is only filler when it is both superfluous to the main 'campaign' and when it's unenjoyable to the player.

Like, if you're playing part of the main campaign, and it isn't fun, it's not filler, it just sucks.

If you're playing a side mission, but you're having a blast, it isn't really filler, because it's a fun part of the game, and you're glad it's there.

But if you're playing a side mission and it's just an unenjoyable slog, then it feels like filler, because you're just padding your game-time without having any fun.

It could be filler or not filler depending on the player. Just depends on whether you find it to be a valuable part of the game or not.
 

Tingle

Member
To me, the difference between filler and additional content is if its forced upon the player. If extra content is required to advance the game and its unfun or unfulfilling, then it becomes filler to me, which nobody likes.

Its fine to have a short open world game- if people find the world that engrossing, they will choose to seek out the would-be filler content in optional quests.

I think a great example of this is in Wind Waker. There are a bunch of optional chests and maps across the world, which bothers nobody. But once they force you to find the Triforce pieces spread across the map, it becomes a huge drag and probably the lowest point of the entire Zelda series.

Make it fun, or keep it optional.
 

RedSwirl

Junior Member
One notable thing about Witcher 3: CDProjekt admitted recently that it determined the size of the world after figuring out how much content would be in the game.
 
I think for me a lot of the filler in open world games are always filler, it's just whether it feels like filler or if it feels like content that was worth completing. I think a good example is Arkham Knight vs Arkham City--in City, most of the sidequest stuff had to deal with sidestories and villians that Batman goes after, whereas in Knight most of the side stuff had to do with Arkham Knight himself and just felt like filler material rather than worthwhile--it's the difference between hunting down Hush by searching crime scenes and taking out 20+ watchtowers, roadblocks, mines, etc to remove Arkham Knight forces from the city.

Another example is that the stuff in Watch Dogs always felt filler because the whole pull of that game was the story--the hacking mechanics and combat didn't have enough to them to have any real pull outside of the stealth, which was always harder and slower than just gunning down everybody. Compare that to GAF's favorite punchbag Shadow of Mordor, where the side missions there actually felt fun to play because the world itself just carries this soulfullness that Watch Dogs never had, you know? They were small challenges focusing on a single mechanic each, and they always felt fun to do and like an extension of the feel of the game.
 
"I've got something different for you! Go to this settlement, talk to them, clear out a place of raiders and report back"

Filler is anything that doesn't advance the main story. Yes this means all side quests are filler.

Filler isn't inherently bad and can be done adequately well, as per TW3. The issue is games like AC or DA:I taking the concept and using it as a weapon directly aimed at the heart of gaming.
 

Bolivar687

Banned
I think filler is anything that fits in the mold of mini map icons that recycle a repeatable encounter type. That was the one thing that held the Witcher back for me, the points of interest were like an action game - bandit camps, monster nests, treasure hunts, prisoner rescue - everything pretty much kill a group of enemies and recover the loot in the middle.

This might be an unpopular opinion right now but that's the one area were Bethesda came out unscathed from all this. I can't speak for Fallout 4, I don't play the series, and Skyrim had a lot of filler quests because of the Radiant/procedurally generated quests that were all fetch missions. But Morrowind's, Oblivion's and Skyrim's quests are largely not filler - they're not mini map icons, they're all somewhat unique with some relevance to the greater world and lore. And starting with Oblivion, nearly every quest giver has unique quirks and almost every quest has a twist. You can play a Bethesda game for dozens of hours and never touch the main quest and have a satisfying playthrough. You can't do that with the Witcher, as big of a fan as I am of the games and books.
 

NBtoaster

Member
Filler is otherwise optional game content that is included in the story. Like in Fallout 4 the part of the main quest that makes you go scavenge for parts to build something.

A common example would be a story requiring money to advance, making you participate in side activities to acquire it.
 

Yasae

Banned
Witcher 3 works because there are kind of levels of content in the game. At the lowest level are the dynamic things like outposts, points of interest, and monster nests that feel more like things to stumble upon in the world. Above those are the Witcher contracts which are like somewhere in between a full sidequest and activity. Normally you'll fight a unique monster and a backstory will accompany it, along with some unexpected twists and turns. A step above that are the actual sidequests that are fully fleshed out and tell overarching stories and some even have major world state changing events. Above all of that is the main quest which initially starts out with a simple premise and escalates into a large scale conflict.

The trick here is to never ever let the lowest in the hierarchy be the meat of your game. Dragon Age Inquisition had this problem (and I suspect X does too) , leading to extremely long stretches of time where you would not interact with a single meaningful NPC, and the story would lay at a standstill for a drawn out amount of time. Witcher 3 works so well because there is balance between all of those types of quests. You never feel forced into any one. There is only one real grind point: getting enough gold to sail to Skellige. It's a meaty game but it can either be a lean 30 hour experience, a solid 60 hour game, or potentially 100 if you want to see everything. The smart thing is that all of those are viable options.

Basically, it's fine to have filler "activity" content, but it should never be the driving force of the game. Let it be what it should be, side stuff for people that want more or that they naturally discover, but it should never ever overshadow everything else. The instant you do that it becomes a grind meant only to boast "100+ hours" even though none of it has much substance.
Wow, thread already over.
 

MikeyB

Member
Is critique of "filler" always accurate, or are we mistaking personal disinterest in the core game systems and content as "filler"?

Always accurate? Definitely not. One gamer's filler is another's fun.

The critique of filler rings true as soon as the activity feels too much like crossing off items on a checklist. I think that it is personal and hard to describe neatly. Ultimately, having kids and a house and a career can be a checklist if attaining them is more important to you than actually taking part in them.

It really depends on how invested the player is. That's naturally going to be a chemistry of game design and player tastes.
 

daninthemix

Member
It's a really tough question but fundamentally my problem is that at some point, some open world games start to feel like work. And it's not a clear-cut point either. This 'work-ness' sneaks in, perhaps amidst genuine enjoyment - be it the fun of exploring an amazing environment, something open-worlds do very well indeed.

In fact for me it's often this contradiction: my motivation to spend time in this huge world it to explore, and by exploring I hope to discover. But the formulaic open-world systems that have sprung up are anathema to exploration, because there is no surprise. You have a dozen different type-classifications that are pasted again and again across the map. Here's a race. Here's a treasure hunt. Here's an enemy base. Here's a tower.

My primary motivation is exploration > surprise > delight. A bad open-world yields only exploration > chores > boredom and/or a sense of niggling obligation.
 

Heman

Member
I feel that there are two main ways to make the sidequests / challenges feel less like fillers.

One way would be for them to have a tangible effect on the games plot . This doesn't need to be massive at all. Simple dialogues additions or rewards that are recognised by the game would be enough.
For example , you can dragon hunt in dragon age inquisition. The game could have rewarded this by giving you cool dragon armor / stuff and the NPCs or even the villain acknowledging it in an extra line.

The other way would be to have the sidequests have you improve on/ learn/ master the games mechanics. DMC 4 did this with its hidden missions. The difficult thing about this one is that you REALLY NEED some badass gameplay for them to be worth it .
 
In The Witcher 3, many quests that feel like they should be filler usually have an array of well acted characters, often a twist or two, and some sort of investigation to do. It rarely felt too much like filler. Even the Go Hunt X enemy usually has some unique situation each time.

In Fallout 4, I had quests where I got it, went to a building to do, beat a few enemies, and boom, done. Not very satisfying.

That's filler.
 

120v

Member
it's pretty rare i throw the word "filler" around. especially in open world games as most of that "filler" is pretty much part of the core game (disclaimer: i've never played ass creed)

even with half assed stuff like radiant quests in bethesda games, it's purely optional and the game doesn't overly on it. so it's hard for me call it filler
 

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Thanks to everyone who replied and made an effort to explore the topic. My next thread will be Dark Souls III vs. Witcher 3, so stay tuned.
 
I actually stumbled across a great article by Joshua Calixto that talks about why Witcher 3's open world works so well (*some minor W3 sidequest spoilers*). The answer? It's called sideshadowing--basically, giving the gameworld the illusion of being part of a greater whole. It's in all of the best open worlds; as the article illustrates, it makes everything feel alive, not designed for the player, but rather around the player. Because open worlds are never truly open, the illusion of openness is the very best they can aspire for.

In contrast, bad open worlds are static places filled with checklists, completely artificial and existing solely as a giant, multi-tiered level for the player to complete. Ubisoft's trademark open world is the easiest example, but Bethesda is in the same camp--the latter just makes 99% of the objectives optional and drown players in more content than they'll ever want to obfuscate this truth. (Bethesda basically gets it half right--if they gave their own world agency, as in the ability to decide things without the player, it would be over with the Witcher 3.)
 
I think for side quests to not be filler, it should fulfill at least one (preferably both) of two functions.

1. Take full advantage of the game's core gameplay mechanics. (ie what Souls games usually does, Final Fantasy XII's quests)

2. Reward the player with significant world or character building. (I think the Witcher 3 does this)
 
I really liked how Mass Effect handled side quests versus Dragon Age Inquisition (Origins did it well also)--it felt like there was some care put into it. For me what constitutes filler outside of forcing the player to do it, and having it keep you from the main storyline, is when a side quest or activity is just kind of there. No quality dialogue, no effort of the way of presentation, just an activity that takes up time sending you across the map in some form. I felt like with Mass Effect even when you were doing missions that had nothing to do with the main story you had at least somewhat cinematically presented conversations beforehand, and since the game was about exploring space and saving the galaxy it made sense for you to be investigating some base you found. But with Inquisition it made no sense to have you, the leader of the most powerful organization in the land at that moment running around finding some farmer's lost livestock. Or doing all these MMO style quests with you just finding a thing and delivering it to them.
 

Griss

Member
Love the OP, because it really touches on a bug-bear I have with how people deal with the Assassin's Creed series. They say 'the gameplay is bad', and often mean the combat. But running around the world from A to B, and picking and choosing your lines, and how you'll access the next destination or item you're going for - that is the core gameplay.

Many people consider collecting feathers in AC: Black Flag to be filler. But it never was to me. Why not? Because each was placed under one of two coniditions. Either it was
a) In a location that required some thought to access, or
b) In a location that offered a spectacular view.

So either you were being challenged to use the core gameplay to get the feather (no different than plotting a course to a star in Mario) or you were being promised a stunning view in a game where a huge part of the appeal is the stunning view. I trusted that the designers would deliver with each of those collectibles, and they very rarely failed. It was exactly why I was playing the game, and therefore, while not in any way connected with the story and offering no in-game advantages, it was never filler to me.

However in previous Assassin's Creed games, the hidden packages or feathers were NOT placed with this care. There was no rhyme or reason to where most of them were. They didn't feel like a well designed, thought-through experience. They were there to offer the bored completionist something to do, and were therefore filler.

So I guess the topics of conversation I challenge in this thread are:
- In an open world game, how do we define "filler" content from regular content that exists to exemplify the game systems?
- Is critique of "filler" always accurate, or are we mistaking personal disinterest in the core game systems and content as "filler"?
- Which open world games appeal to you, compared to those that don't, and why exactly do you enjoy that content/design more?
- How can open world game design evolve to more intricately weave its content/"filler" into the freeform explorable landmass itself?

1. The 'packages' in GTA are a great example. They require no skill, barely use the game systems (shooting, driving, racing etc), and aren't hidden in particularly clever ways. They're just something to do when you've exhausted the rest of the content. They're filler.

Essentially, if your core game experience is 'X', and reaches certain standards at its best; then I feel like if you introduce optional 'Y' content or further content in the 'X' style that doesn't reach the standards of the main 'X' experience then you may be looking at filler.

For example: An RPG that has 60 quests with voice acting and authored story. Then on top of that it randomly generates quests with no voice acting that are simple 'Kill 10 rats' or similar. This content is manifestly weaker than that which the main game presents. It's just there to pad time. It's filler. Fallout 4 is a good example of this for me. The radiant quests feel like filler - obviously weaker than the main game experience for the sake of padding out the game.

Chalice Dungeons in Bloodborne are another example. The sense of world-building and lore in a world of stunning architecture mixed in with brilliant enemy encounters is what makes that game what it is. Chalice dungeons are bland, with repeating geometry and no environmental storytelling, with far less interesting enemy encounter designs. They are clearly weaker than the main game. They can even be randomly generated. To me, they are either filler or at the very least border on it. These two games are examples of the 'weaker content of the main game experience to pad the game' kind of filler.

An example of 'content that is outside the main game experience' filler would be a game where progressing through a linear narrative story and shooting people is the main focus of the game. We'll call that gameplay experience 'X'. In that scenario going slightly off the beaten path to collect trinkets is filler to me. Uncharted is an example of this. The game and the levels just aren't designed for exploration. It's a weak attempt at introducing replayability into a game design (linear narrative blockbuster) that doesn't naturally offer it. The game isn't designed to make that hunt fun or interesting. It doesn't justify it.

2. I believe that the vast majority of the time people are mistaking disinterest in the core game mechanics. See my AC analogy. If you don't like the parkour, or don't think that parkour-ing to high points to look out over a beautiful world is appealing, then 80% of an AC game is going to feel like 'filler' to you. The reality is you just don't like the game. I'm as guilty of this as anyone, I imagine.

3. A very hard question for me to answer as I like almost all open-world games, being a virtual tourist. Those that offer the greatest freedom and rewards for exploration appeal the most, those that are most focussed on combat mechanics or the like appeal the least. Games with a world that feel 'hand-crafted' by artists and writers working in tandem (Witcher 3) are my favourite. Games that have a lot of repeated geometry and are clearly just a basic 'Sandbox' for the action (Infamous SS) are my least favourite.

4. I think it's simply a case of recognising that if your core content is 'X', then adding 'Y' to pad the game out to 100 hours is not a good idea. Just accept that the game is what it is, and that it's better to have someone finish the game after 60 hours and say 'Wow, that was fantastic' than play to 100 hours and say 'Good game, but lots of filler.' And accept that if the person really wants more of the gameplay that you offer then they're better off just playing the game again.

But 'value' is such a key piece of how ultra-price-sensitive consumers (most gamers) make decisions that companies are terrified of doing that.
 
Top Bottom