Here is the List of Top 8 Worst Open World Games. Open worlds are massive, explorable alternate realities, and many of them are very, very good, but not all of them. That’s what we’re looking at today. Top eight games that messed uptrying to be open world.

When it comes to open world games some titles have received negative reviews from gamers and critics alike. While opinions on game quality can vary here are some examples of open world games that have been widely criticized include: Mafia III, Mirror’s Edge Catalyst, Mass Effect: Andromeda, Prince of Persia and many more.

List of Top 8 Worst Open World Games

Mafia III

Starting off at number eight, it’s “Mafia III

“While the first two games in the “Mafia” series flirted with the idea of being open world, it wasn’t till “Mafia III” that the series went all in.

After the amazing first few hours which were actually very linear, when the game dumps you into a fictional version of New Orleans and tasks you with systematically dismantling basically all of the organized crime.

There’s a lot this game wants you to do, and it gets really tedious really quick. The actual main missions remain pretty good, and if you follow along with those, that’s a good experience.

However, the massive amount of padding  You have to wade through to get to them, that’s annoying. If you didn’t have to do basically everything before the game would let you continue, then it wouldn’t be nearly as much of a drag.

But, for whatever reason, you literally have to clear out all the main crime spots on the map, which boil down to repetitive speaking and shooting sections in small areas beforemoving on to the next thing.

The frustrating thing about it is that outside all of the boring busy work,  It’s a solid game with a really interesting story and a very cool world, but all of the tedious, stereotypical open-world elements they added into this game really drag it down.

If they just made this game linear, like the first two, it probably would’ve

been much, much better.

Mirror’s Edge Catalyst

At number seven is “Mirror’s Edge Catalyst”

The first “Mirror’s Edge” game was absolutely awesome. It was a stylish parkour action game with a unique perspective.

They managed to do parkour in first-person pretty much for the first time.  And it was set in this amazingly stylistic, detailed unique city environment.

It had one big problem though. It was about a two-hour game, and then there wasn’t much left to do, but run time trials.

Now, with the sequel, “Mirror’s Edge Catalyst,” Dice made the game an open world, in an effort to make the setting bigger. And while the game has its fans, there are a lot of people, myself included, who believe it is a lesser follow-up to the original.

Now, that doesn’t mean I don’t like it. I like it. Most of it, anyways. But a lot of the open-world additions to the gameplay are awkward.

The best parts in “Catalysts” are the best parts of the original, the linear levels that really let you let loose with the move set that you have. But another major issue it had, at least at release, was bugged.

There were a lot of rough edges for a game that has the word “Edge” in its title. Specifically, a “Mirror’s Edge,” is Implied to be an incredibly straight, perfect edge.

No, they were rough. They were rough in this game’s release. And the original didn’t have those rough edges.

It was kind of an experimental game that worked really smoothly. So, it’s kind of easy to chalk those issues up to the open-world structure.

Now, again, I wanna stress it’s not a bad game, but it lost some of the charms that the original “Mirror’s Edge” had in being such a well-done, polished experience, Even if a little short.

Mass Effect: Andromeda

At number six is “Mass Effect: Andromeda”

Now, the line between RPG and open-world games is often a blurry one, but I feel like it’s hard to call the three games in the original “MassEffect” trilogy open-world.

They’re pretty linear and too mission-based really to be called anything other than RPGs. While, on the other hand, “Mass Effect: Andromeda” hits a lot of the open world boxes.

 There are massive open planets to explore, quests to take on from locals, and repetitive collectibles

And objectives dotted all over the map. There’s no singular world to explore but each planet’s big enough that it pretty much qualifies.

 And I don’t think any of that would really be a huge issue, except that it’s really boring. In some ways, the gameplay is a little more interesting than the linear gameplay of the original series.

Like the addition of a jet pack makes the combat way better. It’s more fluid and it’s certainly more action-packed and varied.

But the actual oven world stuff you do are just really, really dull.  The missions you get from locals are pretty much universally the basic, “Hey, go get this thing and bring it back to me, “’cause I am a local who doesn’t wanna go out to the area “that I would know better than you.

“You, this random stranger, can you do this for me? “You probably don’t know anything about that area “but go ahead, please do this for me.” And it’s like a flower or something. Just like with “Mirror’s Edge Catalyst,” this isn’t a bad game per se.

It perhaps contained a larger share of faults  Than “Mirror’s Edge Catalyst” did, that did make it, oh, a lot less good than the originals. But I don’t wanna call it terrible. Just filled with a lot of boring content.

Prince of Persia – why is it on the list of Worst Open World Games?

The “Sands of Time” trilogy was about as linear as they come, outside of a little bit of backtracking in “Warrior Within,” so it makes sense that Ubisoft would want to do something different when they rebooted the series back in 2008.

Instead of being linear,  The new game was a completely open world. You could explore any of the four main areas in any order you wanted. And well, that wasn’t all that changed.

Time powers were gone, which, I mean, that was what “Prince of Persia” was about, traversal was greatly simplified, and combat was entirely reworked.

Also, you couldn’t die. To say the game was a massive departure from the originals would be an understatement. And while it’s much more open than the original games,  The depth just isn’t there. Pretty much all you do is go around collect light seeds and heal all the fertile grounds.

And there are some bosses and that’s it. So, while the world is beautiful, and a lot of the dialogue is actually pretty charming, the game feels bare bones. It really just feels like a collection of arenas that are strung together by climbing sections, and the environment really just doesn’t even matter after a while.

There’s stuff to like about the game,  The art design’s top-notch, but the actual gameplay isn’t really that engaging.

Metal Gear Survive

Not technically the first open-world game in the series, “Metal Gear Solid V” is, but bear with me. “V” has a lot of open-world elements, but it’s kind of more of a hybrid.

The open-world stuff is kind of there to enhance the mission-based gameplay, and that’s the focus of the game. It’s really about selecting missions from a screen and going to that place. 

Not really a traditional open-world game in the strict definition of the word. Not that the world itself didna have its vistas to explore and view to see, but”Survive” is a lot closer. You’re stuck on a map you have to explore.

You follow markers to the junk you have to collect and build up your base, and, you know, survive. I mean, it’s a fine concept for a game.

There are a lot of games that follow this exact line of thought. But this game is heavily flawed and missing a lot of elements

That makes “Metal Gear” “Metal Gear.” Like, for one, it has none of the classic characters, it’s set in some alternate dimension with crystal zombies, and it’s very boring.

They basically copy-pasted”Metal Gear Solid V’s” gameplay onto a bog-standard survival game. So, while the controls are amazing, everything feels awkward and unnecessarily confusing.

So, it’s not that fun to play. Like a lot of games on this list, the open-world elements feel lazy and tacked on to drag the game out,  Rather than because they thought, “Wow, an open world would give us a lot more possibilities “and afford us the canvas to paint a much broader picture.” No, it’s just more. And not necessarily more good stuff.

Homefront: The Revolution

 And number three is “Homefront: The Revolution”

Like, all right, the first “Homefront” wasn’t a masterpiece or anything, it was functional, but it was mostly an uninteresting”Call of Duty” knockoff.

It did at least achieve what it was trying to do though. With home “Homefront: The Revolution,” they got really ambitious. Instead of a linear three-hour campaign, They decided they wanted to make “Far Cry 3,” and it is not great.

Visually a lot of it actually still looks pretty great but the gameplay itself is super rough, especially on consoles. Maybe my biggest issue is actually the controls. Sluggish and unresponsible in a way that’s kind of hard to describe.

For a shooter, movement and aiming should feel really snappy and responsive, not like you’re controlling the game from a tub of molasses, which is honestly what it feels like sometimes. The open-world stuff actually isn’t that bad most of the time.

Most of it’s pretty standard though. The city environment does add some additional layers of exploration that games like “Far Cry 3” and “4” set mostly in the wilderness. They don’t have those things. So, I mean, there are caches to collect, safe houses unlock, strongholds to take down.

And I wouldn’t call any of it bad per se, but the way the game feels just drags the whole thing down.  This game didn’t exactly damage the franchise or anything though.

“Homefront” was already dead in the water passed the first game, but this definitely wasn’t the revolution that the series needed.

Dynasty Warriors 9

Do you remember when this game came out? I was, unfortunately, the one who had to do the before you buy, ’cause I love the “Warriors” games.

But after nine games, this series finally made the switch to open-world, and wow, not pretty. The “Dynasty Warriors” games are all about overpowered hero characters taking on gigantic armies. And that basic premise has served the series well for a really long time.

But during development for number nine, some genius decided what the series needed was a bunch of boring MMO stuff between the battles.

That’s basically what”Dynasty Warriors 9″ is, an offline version of the most boring, basic, Nothing special, stereotypical MMO you’ve ever played. The environments are beyond dull.

Everything’s so spread out, it takes so long to get to anything, and most of your objectives are just fetch quests. And to call that tedious,I think would be nice.

After a while, this game feels oppressive. I was so mad at Koei Tecmo’s for this game when it came out.

When you actually do get to the hacking and slashing things improve, but the battles are actually less interesting rather than more, taking place on an open-world map,  Because everything just happens in an empty field.

It’s boring and shockingly ugly. There are some ambitious and interesting ideas, none of them are executed well though, and it’s not worth slogging through all the boring crap to see them.

In all seriousness, the idea of “Dynasty Warriors” in an open world sounds plausible because you think, “Oh, huge armies on a huge open world. “The battles could be so intense.” But that is not how it worked out.

DRIV3R: The Worst Open World Games

When it comes to infamous flops, few games flopped harder than “Driver 3.” What was supposed to be the ultimate “Grand Theft Auto III” killer, ended up being, uh, well, “Driver 3,” you know?

This game is better remembered as a punchline than as an actual game, which maybe is a little unfair. But when I said that you laughed, I laughed.

I mean, it might be a little unfair to the game ’cause there were some ambitious ideas, but they didn’t really pan out. Like the fact, the game had not one

But three different cities to explore, but the bugs and the general jankiness of the gameplay really drag it down. That’s the biggest issue with the game, actually.

The open-world nature of it isn’t necessarily the problem, it’s the bugs and the controls. Now, that said, if they had not made an open-world game they probably could have spent that time on the bugs and the controls.

But still, playing the game feels stiff, feels unresponsive, and almost always feels like you’re gonna crash. The game literally feels like  It’s being barely held together.

And that’s kind of what killed it. It was too ambitious for its own good and was rushed out to meet a deadline.

I’m not saying the open-world stuff is great or anything, It’s actually pretty bare-bones, but that’s not really what messed up the game.

Just being an open-world game did. It added complexity and made a game that was too big to make in the amount of time they had to make it. That is what killed”DRIV3R” with a 3 an E.

That’s all for today. If we left out anything then do let us know in the comment section or reach out to us on Twitter.