We need to talk. A game came out recently, Prince of Persia. It's a wonderful game, a little repetitive, and I have yet to "die" in the form of a game over, and I'm willing to bet that there's no such thing as a game over. It takes a little of the challenge out of the game, but it's still a well put together game and worth a rental or as a used game purchase.
But that's not what I'm here to talk about. I keep seeing reviewers use the term "Open World Gameplay" and similar things. Open world eh? You should really go back to school. An open world would be something like Fallout 3, Oblivion, Farcry, and countless others. Prince of Persia is most definitely not an open world.
The Prince of Persia world is a network of nodes. Each node is connected to one or more other nodes by way of various hallways and platforming sections. In general, there are two paths between each connected pair of nodes. One path leads one direction (usually) and the other path leads back. There is the occasional deviation from those paths for secret areas, but in general there are only two paths between two nodes.
Here's a simple diagram
A---B---C
If Prince of Persia was an open world, I would be able to travel from point A to point C while completely bypassing point B. An open world would allow me that much freedom. Prince of Persia requires that I travel path AB then BC in order to get to my destination, I can't go any other way. There is no AC path that skips B. How in the **** is that an open world?
So, dearest game reviewers, if you used any permutation of "Open World Gameplay" in your review of Prince of Persia, please resign from your critic's position and make way for a new reviewer who knows the difference between an open world and a network of nodes.
Thanks,
NixNot