I’ve been replaying the original Mass Effect trilogy lately and it’s got me thinking—does anyone else find that modern RPGs with their huge, dense open worlds actually feel less immersive to you? I’ll spend 80 hours in a single playthrough of something recent, but I don’t feel connected to the characters or the story the way I did in those older, more linear narratives. Maybe it’s just me getting older, but I miss that tighter focus.
Mass Effect hooked me with crew moments that felt earned and with small choices that echoed. Open worlds today can be epic in scale but often feel hollow.
In Mass Effect and in older linear games the narrative pressure is tighter. The beats push you toward a payoff you can sense. In big modern RPGs you can drift and still think you are playing the story.
Maybe this is a taste thing not a flaw in design. Mass Effect showed a compact arc can carry emotion, while big worlds can overwhelm with options and noise leaving immersion as a slow burn rather than a punch.
Mass Effect fans sometimes focus on the squad more than the map. If we shift immersion from map density to character chemistry we might get it back in modern RPGs. In that frame both styles have value.
If the premise is that linear beats are more immersive than sprawling worlds maybe the real measure is what counts as immersion. Is it emotional attachment or just rampage through story events Mass Effect made you feel involved in the crew?
Writing pace matters in any game. In the Mass Effect trilogy the timing of dialogue and mission setup felt cinematic. In open world RPGs the same craft can be scattered through side quests which can dilute the core thread.
As I get older I find I crave a smaller loop. Mass Effect gave me a dependable loop with a crew and mission mood that I miss in sprawling modern games.