Why do almost all Open World Games need invisible barriers, while Minecraft does completely without (except at the very edge).
Why don't modern open world games offer the possibility to modify the landscape? For example, to put ladders or to use throwing hooks. Mountains in particular are a real nuisance in various games. Hard to climb, it takes forever to climb and only possible on predefined paths.
Minecraft is of course extremely simple, it's clear. I know these are just blocks. A ladder would have to adapt to the rock face in properly formed mountains - but I don't see why that shouldn't be possible.
It is not impossible, but it would consume a lot of resources to program such a realistic open world game. It also takes a very long time. You have already recognized that Minecraft is actually relatively easy to set up. No Minecraft developer has programmed every seed or every world. Certain attributes are set and the world is generated.
Do you have a hell machine that can represent a huge game in realistic graphics?
This is simply a question of complexity, the available computing power and also the meaningfulness.
Tl; dr: Large, auto-generated landscapes only exist at the expense of the complexity of the objects and / or the diversity of the landscape.
Minecraft is a voxel game, the whole world is laid out in a uniform three-dimensional grid and the structure of the world is relatively simple, so the world can be generated in advance in terms of programming, as well as in terms of the computing power of the end user. The graphics / optics of the game allow that too, without appearing "funny". If you now have a game like Battlefield, the objects are simply too complex, an automatically generated landscape would look extremely unrealistic, which is quite important in such games, unlike Minecraft, or it would consist of constantly repeating patterns. The landscape from a real. Game consists of thousands of small and large objects, which can be arranged by a program so that they do not look artificial and / or just look nonsensical to the human eye.
The next question would be, what would most games benefit from if they were for a very / infinite. Big world so much more computing power and programming effort Would have to invest just to give the player more space at the expense of optics? Mostly nothing at all, because many games have a linear structure or have a separate frame for the story. It should also be noted that in normal games the world must also be filled with tasks / content. Skyrim would e.g. Not better if there's simply more space without quests in the rooms.
I also wish for more space and freedom in some games, in many games this would also be theoretically possible, but such requests as you have are currently not feasible, would be cost-intensive (not only money, also computing power, graphics losses…) and would not deliver playful added value.
Death Stranding lives off making the huge rough world easier with ladders, bridges and roads.
Otherwise, follow the answers from the others here
The world of Minecraft is randomly generated and built up very simply by the blocks.
In addition, it is difficult to completely install a story, quests etc. Without the limits you have described.
Minecraft is not infinite.
The world is procedurally generated.
In addition, it is difficult to completely install a story, quests etc. Without the limits you have described.
Oh yes that's right, that's right, there's no such thing in Minecraft.
Well, there should be the story, but I would like to have an individual way to get to the quest location. With Far Cry, it worked quite well, but only if there were no mountains or buildings - as far as I know, Far Cry 4 had even tried to extend the height (vertical paths), but not freely.
Minecraft is not infinite.
What does that have to do with it?
The world is procedurally generated.
How does that answer the question? What do you mean by that?
If you now have a game like Battlefield, the objects are simply too complex, an automatically generated landscape would look extremely unrealistic
I don't want that at all, please read my question!
Tl; dr
Impudence. Do not read a short text, write yourself 3x as long. No wonder that most of your text answers a question that I never asked. So much for meaningfulness.
what would most games benefit from if they were for a very / infinite Big world so much more computing power and programming effort Would have to invest just to give the player more space at the expense of optics?
It was never about more space, it was about more ways to move in the given space. For example, it is possible to fall down from mountains, but not to climb back up - if the player survives, they have to walk 3 km up the winding path again.
What they got from it is that they would be more popular and more players would buy the game. Minecraft is home to more and more adult players who would switch with built-in "Minecraft aspects".
but such requests as you have are currently not feasible, would be costly (not only money, also computing power, graphics loss…)
Why are they not feasible? And why should that require so much computing power? Or loss of graphics? Quality, storytelling and characters are already at a top level. What is still missing is more free will for the player and realism. Areas that have been completely neglected.
Oh, do you mean that the complete use of the terrain is only possible by random generation?
Do you have a sample video for it or a more detailed description of how it works in the game? The game itself is unfortunately not mine (too much war and violence), but I would be interested in the game mechanics.
That sounded like that, because you talk about the invisible barriers and compare them to Minecraft several times. Obviously, some others understood it that way.
Why do you take that as a cheek? I just wrote that not everyone who wants to have a brief overview of my answer doesn't have to read the whole text straight away. I have read your question again and my answer is really not so irrelevant as you describe it.
In the RPGs I played, the mountains are largely not intended to be considered routes. I used to do that in Skyrim and meant that I take the "short" route over the mountain, but that's not what they're meant for, there are actually always some passes. The problem of why the developers do not do this is also more generally described above, it is complex and offers hardly any added value.
What possibilities are there to make such mountains passable? Either you change the "movement characteristics" of the character, e.g. Jumping higher would be nonsensical, since that is mostly based on reality and it is not compatible with the rest of the game. You could also introduce something like ladders, which you have already mentioned, but now imagine what it looks like, your hero runs around in Skyrim with a ladder on the mountain, just to avoid a passport integrated by the developer. Furthermore, it is relatively difficult to allow the ladder to be placed at any point without looking very funny. All the effort to make a backdrop that was often not beautifully worked out accessible without meaningful added value. The meandering pass is probably longer, but with a mount and also mostly on foot, it is still faster than such a "shortcut".
As I said, you can't compare this to Minecraft, a voxel sandbox game is designed in its entire structure to offer just such possibilities, that is the whole character of such games. The price is then among other things the unrealistic graphics (which does not have to be bad, but e.g. Does not fit into a medieval fantasy game) and the geometry of objects and landscape.
Yes, it would probably be feasible, but it would not be worth it because it is too expensive to develop, eats too much computing power and provides too little added value compared to the costs. Recently, a planned MMORPG was rammed in again that just wanted to offer a lot of freedom, but it had technical and financial limits. Believe me, I would also be very happy about such a game and also hope that Star Citizen will eventually become such a game, but my points can be seen very well on this ambitious project. It has been in development for a long time, is the most expensive computer game ever produced and is still in development. End users need high-end PCs and are still struggling with performance and the goal is still far from being met, although nobody knows whether the game will ever be finished. You imagine all of this a little too simply. Sure, something as small as a fully accessible mountain can be implemented, but it still costs money, time and that is in no way related to the little benefit.
I haven't played it myself. Check out YT for "Death Stranding building streets". You can find a bunch of things there
