No. I've said this for the past year, open world is pointless at this point. A solid campaign system with large maps and... well complete everything.
Honestly the open world part dropping didn't bother me a bit. It's all the hyping of stuff that was going to be here at launch and nowhere to be seen or close to being seen. One twitch you can hear "It's all made just such and such issue left!" then never hear about it again or see it. Stuff like that doesn't instill confidence of them doing anything large scale. I've been following this game since it was announced and it's just repetitive with it.
The rest of you are the people who read "Best burger in the world!" in an advertisement for McDonalds and are now upset that said burger is crap. Some of you also preordered said burger for a ludicrous amount of money on the condition of extra fries, but McDonald's chipper broke. Also known as people who buy miniatures from Games-Workshop.
LOL, I laughed my ass off Good stuff Zhull But now seriously, from what I've read here (and in other forums) I can conclude that the lack of open world is what really killed EC for most of players. The few remaining are satisfied with 'the half done hamburger' as Zhull nicely put it. I also noticed some of the forumites still believe 'the little open world' - fortress + 3 outposts is still possible...well, some ppl never learn
I still loik da idea. Population imbalance be a fing dat evary game dat has PvP factions gotz ta' worry 'bout. Even WoW has PvP serva's where horde outnumba' alliance er vice versa
And then they scream at the people behind the counter for not being mechanical engineers and able to fix the machine themselves. Even if the staff offer some other concessions, it simply IS NOT ENOUGH. So fine, they will never be happy. Maybe they should go to Burger King now since they KNOW they will never be happy. Nah. They are having too much fun harassing other people who don't care about fries and calling them names because the others simply want a meal and don't agree fully and completely with their angst. They demand that the world be fair. I wish them luck with that.
The Idea of an Openworld seemed interesting to me at the time when I first heard about the game. (Btw, it was never "promised". Thats why there is always an "may change in the future" notice). But that was mostly because I like Snipers. And Snipers have a good time in openworld games, because in general you have bigger more open maps, you can hide better and sneak up on enemys better, you have more enemys to shoot, and your enemies have more of your allies to worry about. You basically need openworld/really big maps to really play a Sniper, and not the thing you do in CoD with a Sniper. After playing Planetside 2, in practicality I am more then happy if we don't have an open world. You get some good moments, but most of the time it's just unbalanced. Either to many enemys, you can't do anything, or to few enemies, you can't get any kills. Add to that running around for a long time if you don't have a vehicle. I also never believed in Nids as the magical population solver. SM would have just gotten frustrated that they HAD to fight nids, and quit. The Idea that you don't need the most territory to win a campaign was interesting, but it still wouldn't have changed the individual battles being lopsided. So yeah, I am happy we don't have an Openworld. I would still like Battles to matter though.
OP you forget that open world was only one part of the design of the game.Tyrranids and campaign objectives were the other parts that could (in theory,we never got to test this) balacne the population numbers.
