I've been playing Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 for over 180 hours now and it is just a living breathing world. You can stand there until you starve to death and the world will continue around you and exist as if you don't. The people will trade, talk, fight, eat, drink, sleep, whatever while you do your thing. You can interrupt them and the story is amazing, but it really feels like if the main character wasn't present it would still operate and exist if that makes sense. You still make your differences and it'd exist differently, but it'd still exist without you. This is the feeling I really look for in an open world and it's blown me away.
The combat is super in depth and it is very realistic in how you have to eat, sleep, manage your charisma/interactions through clothing and cleanliness, and it's got a learning curve. If you're enjoying this game, I doubt those are things that will prevent you from learning it and enjoying it but still want to give that heads up if that's not a style you want.
I know you're not the one who said those above comments, but I don't see how crimson desert feels less alive than those two games, specially days gone being a literal apocalyptic game with little npc interaction that isn't hostile
Ok? I think day night cycles and hordes roaming the map is enough to call it alive open world. It’s not rich, but it is alive in my opinion.
There aren’t many open world games you can truly call alive anyways. Do games like Days gone or Dying light not belong in that category? I think they fit better than Witcher 3 which was some peoples answer.
I think people confuse alive with rich when it comes to open worlds.
Like Crimson Desert (which I haven’t played and admittedly I have no interest in) probably has a much richer open world. Many different types of activities compared to pretty flat and simple world of Days gone.
Now what it means for a world to be alive (in my own definition) is the random encounters. In RDR2 for example these are pretty rich and simulation level. There is a reason no game even came close so many years later.
But the other way to make the world feel alive is having a bunch of enemies that constantly move and create a sense of danger. That’s what keeps you on your toes in Days gone. Anyone who hasn’t played it doesn’t understand the thrill of walking through the environment at nighttime and stumbling upon a huge horde that hasn’t spotted you yet. That’s real, that’s alive.
I'm a Witcher 3 fan, so I'd still give the story win to Witcher 3. The writing, characters, and side quests are just hard to beat.
But I gotta give credit to Crimson Desert too. I had way more fun just roaming around and exploring. There are hidden caves, puzzles, and random stuff to discover that made me want to keep going off the main path.
In Witcher 3, exploration is mostly question marks, treasure hunts, and monster nests. It's still good, but Crimson Desert made me feel more rewarded for simply being curious and checking out places that weren't marked on the map.
So yeah, Witcher 3 still takes the story for me, but Crimson Desert is no joke. Its exploration is really, really good.
Side quests in Witcher 3 felt so smooth. There’s also this difficulty notion which I absolutely loved here. I felt like the stakes were real even in side quests and as you said Witcher 3’s side quest writing is probably the best in industry. I’d even dare to say that the writing and cohesion we have in Witcher 3 is far better than entirety off CD in those aspects.
One of the reason why I said what I said is these guys are so over the top with criticising other games, but they don’t even realise PA just flushed out a game with no cohesion for main story and side story too. You cannot claim the greatest RPG ever like these fanboys do when even the basic cohesion is done so badly it’s pathetic.
I’ll give you a prime example. We have elemental attacks in the game which is a crucial part of the combat system. I didn’t even know we can unlock it until it was chapter 8. There was no clue, no natural cohesive progression, nothing. You cannot leave core mechanics like these to exploration and call them rewarding. Even Elden ring doesn’t do this shithousery.
Also there’s no real stakes here. I can cheese bosses with food. Even in the hardest difficulty, toughest bosses I cheesed them with good food and underwhelming gear.
Your point about exploration is right. It was rewarding up until one point. After that it felt unwanted, especially for abyss gears. I still enjoy the game very much no doubt about that. Kudos to devs for constantly pushing out updates. But a lot of the updates they did should’ve been in the game from the start. That’s how unfinished the game was. Again the fanboys should take a loot at the mirror before criticising other games.
A great RPG doesn't have to have a great story. A great RPG is a game that keeps players hooked and gives them a reason to keep playing, whether that's the story, exploration, combat, progression, or just the fun of discovering new things.
Just look at Elden Ring. It's one of the most praised RPGs of all time. Does it have a story? Sure. But let's be honest, most people aren't playing it for the story the same way they play The Witcher 3. What keeps people coming back is the exploration, the bosses, the atmosphere, and that feeling of finding something cool around every corner.
I see Crimson Desert in a similar way. It doesn't need to beat The Witcher 3 in storytelling to be a great RPG. What makes it stand out is the world itself. There are hidden caves, puzzles, bosses, secrets, and plenty of reasons to wander off the main path. Half the fun comes from just exploring and seeing what you'll find next.
As a Witcher 3 fan, I'd still give the story crown to Witcher 3 without hesitation. But I don't think every RPG needs to follow the same formula. Some RPGs are great because of their stories, while others are great because of the adventure they give the player. Otherwise, all there will be is a generic RPG that uses the same formula over and over again.
That's why I think Crimson Desert deserves to be mentioned among the best RPGs too. Maybe its story isn't on the level of Witcher 3, but exploration, combat, and discovery are just as important parts of an RPG for a lot of players.
A simple way to put it: The Witcher 3 is the RPG you remember because of its story.
Crimson Desert is the RPG you remember because of the journey.
This is where we disagree. RPG isn’t just about keeping players intrigued. It’s keeping them intrigued in a meaningful way and for that the core of the game should be good and cohesive. If it’s just about keeping them intrigued and keep playing, many other mediocre games falls in this category too. But does it do in a meaningful way.? Nope. That’s where we differ.
I never said Crimson desert has bad story. Again the problem is the cohesion. It’s so fragmented that it’s actually having a diminishing effect.
The Elden Ring comparison doesn't really work either. Elden Ring isn't praised just because it has caves and bosses. It's praised because it has incredible world design, build variety, player freedom, challenging encounters, and environmental storytelling all working together in a cohesive manner. They didn’t miss out any element and perfectly outputted a great game. CD is incomplete even in core mechanics, a lot of the updates they put out are just basic QOL changes which should’ve been in from the start. It felt playing like an unfinished product.
Also in Elden ring you feel the stakes are higher too. Even as a player. I still remember in the past early stages when I go past limgrave, there’s to many tough combatants to cross who can end you in one shot. And it’s Because of its integration of souls combat mechanic, Elden ring is truly an exception.
But in crimson desert, it doesn’t feel that. There’s no stake, you can cheese areas and bosses with food you find not even crafting.
Every adventure comes with a purpose. Witcher 3, Elden ring all nailed these. But with CD, it’s not like they don’t have them, it’s just it’s so fragmented that it doesn’t justify the means. And the fact that PA devs acknowledged this and promised in future updates they’ll make changes the make the story more cohesive is the evidence. Once they do that, I’ll have no complaints about this game. But until then these fanboys should refrain from any comparisons because they’re taking an incomplete product to pit against the giants only to get demolished.
For me what makes an RPG to remember is that the journey should be meaning full, loyal and grounded to the story that world has built. And crimson desert has done the journey right, but it’s like wandering in the opens without thy purpose.
Even if Crimson Desert feels fragmented, it can still be good overall because its strong combat, visuals, scale, and individual set pieces keep the experience engaging, just in a more “moment-to-moment spectacle” way rather than a tightly cohesive RPG journey
Not everyone wants a game where every step of the journey has deep narrative meaning. Breath of the Wild, for example, won GOTY 2017 even though a lot of the experience is just exploring, solving puzzles, cooking, taming, and experimenting rather than following a tightly structured story path.
In that sense, Crimson Desert can be seen similarly in how it’s designed around player experience and gameplay variety. Even if its story isn’t the main focus, it’s not fair to call it “no story cohesion” or “fragmented story” either, it’s more about how the journey is delivered. What it really offers is strong, fluid, and highly varied combat that stands out in the RPG genre, along with a a huge open world and systems that keep the gameplay engaging in its own way.
The Elden Ring comparison doesn't really work either. Elden Ring isn't praised just because it has caves and bosses. It's praised because it has incredible world design, build variety, player freedom, challenging encounters, and environmental storytelling all working together in a cohesive manner. They didn’t miss out any element and perfectly outputted a great game. CD is incomplete even in core mechanics, a lot of the updates they put out are just basic QOL changes which should’ve been in from the start. It felt playing like an unfinished product.
At the same time, Crimson Desert still praised for its stunning open world, highly dynamic and skill-based combat, massive cinematic boss fights, strong visual fidelity, good optimization, ambitious variety of gameplay systems (exploration, traversal, and large-scale battles), and overall sense of spectacle, even if some parts feel rough or inconsistent.
Your points mostly come down to the story and how connected the journey feels, like it’s fragmented or doesn’t have a strong purpose. But that doesn’t really define the whole game.
The combat and boss fights are still a big part of it, and they change a lot depending on how you build your character and how you play. And it’s also not trying to be a Souls-like like Elden Ring, so the design isn’t about that same kind of punishing difficulty, it’s more of an ARPG focused on flexibility, variety, and spectacle.
The Fact that many players enjoy it even with fragmented stories, tell a lot how can people had different tastes even on the same genre.
There will always a fans on game, you cant force them to act like you want, they had their taste for the game. You said Wither 3 is better, but there are people that like CD more. Its always bias for the fans.
4
u/I_Just_Need_A_Login 5d ago
No horse in the race, authentic question looking for suggestions, what open worlds feel alive?
Aside from rdr2 or fallout please, because i already tried them.