It's gorgeous & I love the potential that brims here.
What if something was this complex and well built, but the storyline was removed - the player simply builds their own story, ala DF Adventurer mode.
Some games come close though, the Witcher 3 includes choice-based gameplay with real consequences that last thoughout the game. However the developers still had to explicitly write each scenario as it unfolded.
Another example is competitive fps games like CoD/Halo/Quake — the story (and singleplayer mode in general) is wholly unimportant; players will continue to have, and create, stories, despite the multiplayer modes offering little more than a setting. Interaction between each other becomes the story you tell.
No man’s sky (NMS) was simply a bad game, and poorly implemented procedural generation (procedurally generated games are appealing in that you’re exploring the system/simulation, and trying to get a handle on it. No man’s sky had a lot of “elements” to its generation, but its system was very basic; it didn’t take long to mostly understand it, and it was sufficiently complex to allow interesting new phenomena to emerge). NMS’s failure says very little about what procedural generation can offer, because it didn’t make a very good attempt at it. Spore is another example of a failed attempt. Borderlands is another, to a degree. None of these games understood that it’s the system thats interesting, not the combinatorial explosion. Thus their procedural generation is totally unsatisfying, and uninteresting.
The difference between a livestream of somebody's house and a soap opera is the storyline.
Without the story, only the world, the intensity is much lower and you would need the world to be much much more detailed to hold any interest. A real fractal of details like in a real world is much more effortful to implement compared to a good story.
And also, Dwarf Fortress is essentially a story building simulator, it is designed to generate interesting stories.
anyway, just some thoughts, people get fun from different things.
Showed the article to my teen son, a big RDR2 fan, who was less impressed, calling it "sad" that someone would play a birder in that world. YMMV.
I didn’t think it would work but it seemed to.
One encounter that stands out in my memory was of driving along a remote road in the middle of the night and coming across a bad traffic collision where a truck had completely crushed a small car along with its driver. Something about the brutal and almost mundane nature of the encounter has stuck with me.
"What was more surprising, though in retrospect it should not have been, was how instantly attached my eight year old daughter became to the game the moment she caught an unlucky glimpse of me playing it. Of course, it makes perfect sense. This is a game where you own a horse, ride your horse, take your horse out into the brush, find wild horses, capture and tame wild horses, and make one of those horses your new horse."
http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2010/12/red-dead-redemption-a...
But it's still a balance between reality and the interesting subset of it; having to manually brush your horse with a mouse would be awful, while requiring that you take your horse to a stable every night would be fine.
The main issue is that to design a decent simulator like that though, you have to avoid basically 90% of modern gaming trends. Fast travel, mechanically-intense play, grinding missions, small-but-numerous subquests, etc are exactly what a modern (A)RPG pushes for, and are exactly how you ruin a game like euro truck simulator. It's the mundanity, scheduling and (some) repetition that makes the game satisfying.
So the hunting and fishing and birding is fun because the rest of the game contextualizes it.
Wilderness (1985)
https://www.mobygames.com/game/wilderness-a-survival-adventu...
From the sound of it, RDR2 would be a great starting point to build a modern implementation of Wilderness.
I don't know to what extent you can remove risk-reward loops without making it a product that can't pay for its own development.
0) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Jo...
Edit: Oops. Make that 1820s, not 1920s.
Also you can ride a horse without the requisite care, cost, time responsibility etc. You can be whoever you want, and when you get bored of that personality, you can just ditch it.
I personally don't really enjoy this game, but it's easy to see why people do.
And of course there just existed more nature. We are destroying our environment and are losing many species. It's getting harder and harder to just enjoy a carefree joke about it...
Games let you do things you really, really, really shouldn't do in real life.
My worry isn't that lots of people would die--because they would--but I worry that nature would be destroyed far faster. Seeing beautiful locations that were undiscovered suddenly become tourist hotspots, they're completely destroyed in the span of months.
They were extinct in the wild by 1895.
In game there is talk about real places (like New York, Cuba, Tahiti) but there is little context to where those are in respect to where the player is.