Aller au contenu

Photo

What is necessary for open world structure to be successful?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
21 réponses à ce sujet

#1
geezer117

geezer117
  • Members
  • 622 messages

I read a lot of pros and cons of "open world" games in this forum, but I don't find much agreement on what a successful open world structure would have to be. 

 

IMO, ME2 was quite successful in branching off of linearity, although it can't in any way be called "open world". But the lessons of ME2 were lost on DA:I and Witcher 3, which I find are mind numbing failures. Maybe I'm just pissed that I upgraded my CPU/RAM/GB for the great graphics only to find the games boring time wasters.

 

So now my anticipation of ME:A is giving way to fear of similar disappointment. Not that we can affect how BW has structured ME:A, but I'd like to hear opinions on what would make an open worlds game successful. Here's my ideas. 

 

1. ME offered a handful of "branches", options the player could choose to do or not do. Each changed the narrative, but the narrative continued (in altered ways). The player knew he was making consequential choices, but always knew where the path was. In DA:I and W3, there are an infinite number of choices with no clue which are consequential. Go left instead of right at a fork in the road, and you are going away from anything remotely connected with the narrative, and after a few fruitless hours of wandering , you might realize that fact, but have no clue which turn was the critical wrong choice. There are an infinite number of people to talk to, with no clue which might be the one with crucial information for you. There are too many random choices and no clues, and the penalty is unlimited aimless wandering.

 

A successful open worlds game would always allow the narrative to advance, and provide the player with adequate clues about how to advance the narrative, taking into account the effect of past choices.  The player should not be left in the dark about whether he has completely lost the path. 

 

2. ME had an acceptably small amount of time wasting tasks accumulating elements or items or experience levels or whatnot to make the player's tasks easier, but nothing serious, and they were not crucial to advancing the game at any point. DA:I and W3 impose enormous burdens of time searching hundreds of houses and landscapes for some item that might be necessary 50 hours later to make some potion that is needed to defeat some enemy. My final frustration with W3 was spending hours in meaningless combat with lesser enemies so I could level up enough to defeat the greater enemies that would allow me to take on quests that would pay gold so I could accumulate enough gold to pay a ship's captain for a passage that I needed to advance the narrative. Two dozen hours later I turned the freaking game off for good. DA:I is no different. 

 

A successful game would limit off-narrative time wasters that block advancement. 

 

3. ME can be played even with a basic manifest and basic powers. Combat mechanics are so good that player skill can compensate. The combat mechanics in DA:I and W3 are atrocious, in comparison. Without the character's level or the right potions or whatnot, the character will simply die facing strong enemies. This fact forces the player to pause the narrative and engage in time wasting and boring searches for ingredients or boring minor combats to "level up". 

 

A successful game of this type requires excellent combat mechanics, and the success of ME:MP is proof that BW is a master of this aspect. Going from ME:MP to DA:I or W3 combat is just totally frustrating. 

 

4. Variety is the spice of life. For all the complaints about the ME3 endings, the narrative path of the trilogy is quite different depending on choices made. I played it through many times to explore it all. My views of the DA:I and W3 endings on youtube don't seem to depend much on the infinite choices the player can make during the game. The main consequence of the infinity of choices seems to be merely how long the player will wander before stumbling on some important person to talk to or item to find. 

 

A successful game will not lock the player into hours of boredom. 

 

 


  • Malleficae, LordSwagley, Metalfros et 1 autre aiment ceci

#2
JeffZero

JeffZero
  • Members
  • 14 400 messages

I dig the cut of your jib here. Unfortunately, the games industry, at current, does not tend to share in said jib-digging.


  • ItFactorScott, Metalfros et Indigenous aiment ceci

#3
Jeremiah12LGeek

Jeremiah12LGeek
  • Members
  • 23 916 messages

21165813949_2d4293130d_o.png

 

Timing!


  • Ajensis aime ceci

#4
mickey111

mickey111
  • Members
  • 1 366 messages

a linear narrative which the player can supplement (or not) with various side content (scouting, salvaging, missions intended to gain allies, improve diplomacy, seize vital infrastructure) that can increase or decrease your chances of getting the desired ending.

 

So basically like the typical Mass Effect campaign on a grander scale. 



#5
Wulfram

Wulfram
  • Members
  • 18 950 messages
Don't fill the world with boring crap
  • ItFactorScott, Malleficae et LordSwagley aiment ceci

#6
Larry-3

Larry-3
  • Members
  • 1 284 messages
Environment -- A neo-noir city with neon lights. Also, side-quest that add to the story.

#7
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 732 messages

a linear narrative which the player can supplement (or not) with various side content (scouting, salvaging, missions intended to gain allies, improve diplomacy, seize vital infrastructure) that can increase or decrease your chances of getting the desired ending.
 
So basically like the typical Mass Effect campaign on a grander scale.



Hmm... wouldn't this mean that a near-completionist run is pretty much necessary in order to get to a good ending?

#8
Enigmatick

Enigmatick
  • Members
  • 1 917 messages

Life.



#9
mickey111

mickey111
  • Members
  • 1 366 messages

Hmm... wouldn't this mean that a near-completionist run is pretty much necessary in order to get to a good ending?

 

yeah, and? people were okay with that in the last games.



#10
Nitrocuban

Nitrocuban
  • Members
  • 5 767 messages

If I was Bioware I would copy big parts of Fallout 3's open world gameplay (lots of nonlinear sidequests, random encounters, looting) but include a good main story arc and deeper squad mate personalities.

 

And DAI was their first attempt at open world RPG and they hopefully learned what people liked and disliked about it, so hopefully generic fetchquests and 100hrs of grinding is are toned down in MEA and we get better side quests with fleshed out story instead.


  • LordSwagley aime ceci

#11
Ahglock

Ahglock
  • Members
  • 3 660 messages

Depends on what they are shooting for.

 

Is the open world the end goal/selling point?

 

Is the story the end goal/selling point and it just happens to be in a open world?

 

Bethesda games take the first strategy.  And they succeed(and they do whether individuals like them or not) with lots of side content, tons of details, character customization, and a almost everything is played out in game style. By that I mean you don't go into non-combat mode when you are in the town.  You can just shoot the shopkeeper, and face the consequences which are minor.

 

The second style is done well IMO in borderlands 2.  Solid story, awesome character development in the world(not your character though, still fairly blank slate).  While open it is MMO open in that it is zoned too difficulty, it lets you run all over the place but the world isn't very interactive no plants to harvest every 3 feet, just story events, monsters, quests. Cut-scenes and more cinematic ways to play out events.

 

While I love both I think the second style fits them better.  ME2 but in a open world where you had wide open maps, quests picked up in the maps with tons of quests in each map.  You don't drop in and do a mission and teleport out, you are travelling a zone maybe for a mission but you spend time there and come across other things that gather your interest. A bit more organic adventure finding instead of picking 5 mini-quests at the world hub that all send you to different linear maps. It allows them to keep their narrative and story telling style but just in an open world adventure and map design.  I think DAI was trying to do the first style more and from what I've heard only pulled off to limited success.

 

This is over simplified, and games frequently try to blend the two and have totally different takes as well.  But this is my impression on the 2 main styles of open world games. 


  • LordSwagley aime ceci

#12
Sartoz

Sartoz
  • Members
  • 4 533 messages

                                                                                                  <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

Freelancer is a space trading/combat simulation game.

 

Immediately, one knows that traveling between systems to find the right planet for trading is necessary. In essence, exploration. While you travel pirates can jump you in space to steal your cargo so there is space combat. The game does allow you to  either be a trader or a fighter/bounty hunter. That is how you make a living and get better gear+money.

 

DAI Inquisition

Gave us the premise of Civil War, Mage/Templar conflicts, holes in the sky that allows hordes of demons to invade Thedas and we need a hero to stop this or all is lost. Instead we get vast open areas like the Hinterlands with mooocho boring fetch quests to increase your Power. so that you can make strategic decisions in four main areas: military, trade, intelligence gathering or diplomatic influence..

 

In essence, we got little of the big ticket items and lots of trivial fetch quests. Whereas in Freelancer, we knew from the start what to expect and it delivered.

 

Bottom line, I believe it's all about expectations vs content delivery. If the focus of ME:A is explorations, then thinking in terms of a Freelancer game is a good start to avoid unnecessary disappointments.

 

IMO



#13
Indigenous

Indigenous
  • Members
  • 249 messages

I read a lot of pros and cons of "open world" games in this forum, but I don't find much agreement on what a successful open world structure would have to be.

 

There are some players that play this game on insane and argue that it is too easy, while there are some players that play on easy and argue that it is too hard.

 

Lets be fair. I think the fact that you posted the secrets for making a successful open world game on widely mocked internet forum is proof you don't have as much conviction in your ideas as you want us to believe. What I am saying is if I knew how to make a successful open world game I would not be posting about it on here. We all have opinions on how this game should be designed and what direction it should head in but I think if your opinion was based on any experience of creating 'successful open world' games you would probably have a private number you could call. :)

 

However, I do agree with you I also want Andromeda to be fun, I am just not as certain that my ideas are sensible.

 

 

Depends on what they are shooting for.

 

Is the open world the end goal/selling point?

 

Is the story the end goal/selling point and it just happens to be in a open world?

 

Bethesda games take the first strategy. 

 

Did they really? I would really like to know, I assume you are just sharing your opinion but maybe you are not and you actually do know what strategy Bethesda took. It would be interesting if this were true.



#14
Zekka

Zekka
  • Members
  • 1 186 messages

How to make a successful Open World game

Squash bugs, glitches, and other technical and performance issues. It's no secret that open world games will have lots of bugs at release but developers can always try to squash as much as possible. Quite frankly, this is one of my biggest issues with open world games. Having things like huge framerate drops, broken quests, deleted saves, AI & game freezes and more. It's really irritating playing a game and finding that you can't complete a quest because it's broken or your quick save becomes corrupted so you have to replay 2 hours worth of content again.

 

No loading screens. This should be a rule and the only exception should be reloading saves and starting the game.

 

The game should have a good content to size ratio. The larger the game world, the more content should be there but at the same time the content should be interesting and every difference counts. Take for example you have assassination missions in the 

 

Make sure your open world makes sense in the context of the story/lore. If I'm on a battlefield, I don't expect hundreds of normal people to be walking around doing normal things. It doesn't make sense. Just like if I were in a desert, I'm not expecting hundreds of people just wandering around in the hot sun.

 

The world itself should also be progressing as we play. I don't expect the world to be the exact same as what I saw and felt when I started the game. For the most part, this Same thing applies to the games characters.

 

Limit the amount of fetch quests/missions, repetitive missions, mundane tasks, filler and chore side activities and reward the player some way for exploring. I don't think a lot of people like participating in filler material in a game and it becomes bothersome to the player especially in a second playthrough.

 

Provide freedom for the player in how they can tackle their objective and limit linearity in exploration. I shouldn't always only have one way to get to somewhere except if said location is special, hidden or heavily guarded.

 

Limit the amount of invisible walls and let the player traverse the world easily. I understand if the devs want to put a barrier in the game but there are ways to do this that can make sense. For example, Gothic 1 was set in a prison colony that was surrounded by a magic barrier that would let anything in but nothing out, it would shock you if you got too close.

 

Make sure that game mechanics are actually good. Combat should function well, with little stiffness and have fluidity. If you have vehicular exploration make sure the vehicles controls well and it's mechanics functions properly, if you can explore on a horse make sure horse riding controls well works well. If on-foot exploration is the only way to go, make sure it works and controls well and the player is allowed to climb, run, jump, grab on things and do other things that make sense.

 

Greatly limit the amount of grinding. If you have creatures in the world that can be killed to basically get xp, then make sure that they don't have unlimited spawning and they won't give you so much xp to greatly over level your character. One way to alleviate the problem is to split the story into chapters so that creatures only spawn in the beginning of chapters and their spawn points, amount of creatures spawned, and what creatures spawned are changed in the beginning of each chapter.

 

Don't have unlimited resources in the world with exceptions. This is also on the issue of grinding, don't have unlimited herbs or crafting resources or items to pick up because the players will immediately exploit this. Do things in moderation and make sure certain items are far rarer than others. 

 

Have a day & night cycle, weather effects, different climate for different locations. It helps with the illusion that the world is alive.

 

No static AI. Every AI in the game must have their own agenda as to what they do daily. People should be talking to each other, walking around, doing a job, going to sleep at the appropriate time. Let the AI do things. They should roam the world, take their horses for a ride, drive their car around to another store, even challenge the player to duels, try to steal from the player and more. AI should be reactive too. If you steal from them and you get caught, then they should either attempt to get their items back or call the authority on you. If you attack an AI they should attack back, flee or call the authority on you. If you do things against the AI then they shouldn't have a favorable opinion about you and can shun you from doing things. 

 

Have random events and random occurrences. Okay, this is something that a number of recent open world games tout but in reality they are somewhat scripted but they are good enough to fool the player. Having things that happen in the living world outside of a quest or mission that has nothing to do with the player but the player can still get involved helps with the illusion that the player can make an impact or is part of a living world. GTA V had this in which you can randomly find people robbing a store and you can kill them and return or take the money for yourself or help them and evade the police.

 

Get rid of leveled enemies. You should remove or limit the amount of enemies that go by "level 10 skeleton" all the way up to "level 80" skeleton. Just increase the variety of creatures, monsters, mutants, aliens or whatever. A normal skeleton should have stats that stay the same throughout the game, an orc enemy should have stats that stay the same throughout the game. A fire dragon should have stats that stay the same but are different from the stats that an ice dragon has. Also, when enemies should spawn in places that make sense, no sense in seeing an ice world in a desert.

 

Make sure to never allow the player to become to over powered, the should still be a sense of challenge from the beginning of the game till the end of the game and this ties into the enemy variety that I mentioned earlier. Let's say, in the beginning of the game you will mostly fight human or bandit level enemies during main missions, later on in the game you should be fighting warrior or paladin level enemies and this also applies for monsters too.

 

Don't scale enemies and gear. You don't want to repeat the problem Elder Scrolls IV oblivion had by having bandits that had really high level gear.

 

There should be some level of interactivity in the world whether it is having conversations with people or picking things up around the world, or killing any and everybody that you see, stealing, breaking into houses, looting dead people. Interactivity should be there, it should make sense and most interactive items should serve a purpose. If I kill a wolf and take it's teeth, I should be able to sell it's teeth or turn it in to someone. If I see a weapon laying on the ground, I should be able to pick it up. If you are going to have crap in your world, most of it should serve a purpose.

 

Diverse locations should exist. Things like having a small town that had only intelligent super mutants living in it, or an underwater planet, or a giant prison colony. Your open world game should have somewhere that is cool or different from the norm in the world and it should be reflected by the people you find there, the items you find there and the story they tell.

 

Choices and consequences for minuscule and major actions. If your game takes place in a civilized world then I expect a police force or authority to come after you. If I am carrying my gun out in the open and there are laws against it or the general populace freaks out about it, then I expect the people to flee, attack me, warn me or call the authority on me. If this is set in a world that doesn't have a general authority, then I expect people to take matters in their own hands.

 

Have extra activities that can be done in the world to make the player feel like their character blow off steam in the world. Gothic 1 & 2 allow you to smoke various types of weed, Witcher 3 has gwent, GTA series has a huge variety of mini games like tennis, bike riding, racing and more.


  • Enigmatick aime ceci

#15
Enigmatick

Enigmatick
  • Members
  • 1 917 messages

If I was Bioware I would copy big parts of Fallout New Vegas' open world gameplay (lots of nonlinear sidequests, random encounters, looting) but include a good main story arc and deeper squad mate personalities.

 

And DAI was their first attempt at open world RPG and they hopefully learned what people liked and disliked about it, so hopefully generic fetchquests and 100hrs of grinding is are toned down in MEA and we get better side quests with fleshed out story instead.

There you go friend.



#16
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 732 messages

yeah, and? people were okay with that in the last games.


True, but that works in ME3 precisely because exploring the whole galaxy map takes under two hours. IF you had to slog across actual maps to pick up all that stuff...

#17
Isaidlunch

Isaidlunch
  • Members
  • 1 656 messages
  • No "lootable objects every 5 meters" loot design, which doesn't really fit Mass Effect anyway.
  • If there's something similar to crafting in MEA then resource nodes should work like in DA2 instead of being all over the world and respawnable.
  • The game should encourage players to explore the world through interesting side quests instead of fetch quests/shards/bandit camps/smuggler caches/etc.


#18
Ahglock

Ahglock
  • Members
  • 3 660 messages

 

Did they really? I would really like to know, I assume you are just sharing your opinion but maybe you are not and you actually do know what strategy Bethesda took. It would be interesting if this were true.

 

I wish I had insider knowledge.  Its just an observation based on their games and marketing. They focus on things like dude the people in the world have routines they follow to simulate a life, they go to work, they eat, sleep etc.  You can pick up the forks and set your table, blah blah.  They pretty much never say what a awesome story and characters we have in this game.



#19
DaemionMoadrin

DaemionMoadrin
  • Members
  • 5 863 messages

So far I haven't seen anything even approaching an open world in BioWare games. Making the maps bigger doesn't change the fact that you have multiple zones instead of one world. Even that aside, the world doesn't reflect your actions, which is another important part of being "open".

 

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Open_world

 

Considering that we are going to travel to different planets, open world design seems the wrong approach for ME:A.



#20
wright1978

wright1978
  • Members
  • 8 116 messages
Tw3 showed to me that if you invest large amounts content into the open world it can be made successful.
However there's trade offs made by not having the same structure for the story to branch off.

#21
ItFactorScott

ItFactorScott
  • Members
  • 250 messages

I am not a fan of the current obssesion with open worlds that gaming is going through. There are few devs that can really make a compelling open world game without sacrificing story and meaningful side content, Bethesda do pretty well with it, as do Rockstar but they have been using that formula for a very long time and so it comes naturally to them.

 

Bioware on the other hand showed with DA:I that an open world may sound great but not when it's mostly empty. I spent way too much time in DA:I wondering around with my thumb up my ass looking for something to do in the world. Hell, half the areas in the game don't even need to be visited for the mostly underwhelming story, they are just loaded with meaningless fetch quests to pad out play time. Give me 20 hours of great story over 70 hours of mediocrity.

 

Call me old-skool, but I'd rather BioWare stick to what they are good at, story and characters, even if it means sticking with mostly linear (though not completely) environments because I think the open world style was one of DA:I's biggest downfalls.

 

Of course if I'm wrong abou this and ME:A has a vast open world and is the greatest thing since Jesus walked on water then I'll happily come back here and have one of you guys serve me up a fat slice of humble pie, because on this occasion I would like to be proven wrong.



#22
Ahglock

Ahglock
  • Members
  • 3 660 messages

I am not a fan of the current obssesion with open worlds that gaming is going through. There are few devs that can really make a compelling open world game without sacrificing story and meaningful side content, Bethesda do pretty well with it, as do Rockstar but they have been using that formula for a very long time and so it comes naturally to them.

 

Bioware on the other hand showed with DA:I that an open world may sound great but not when it's mostly empty. I spent way too much time in DA:I wondering around with my thumb up my ass looking for something to do in the world. Hell, half the areas in the game don't even need to be visited for the mostly underwhelming story, they are just loaded with meaningless fetch quests to pad out play time. Give me 20 hours of great story over 70 hours of mediocrity.

 

Call me old-skool, but I'd rather BioWare stick to what they are good at, story and characters, even if it means sticking with mostly linear (though not completely) environments because I think the open world style was one of DA:I's biggest downfalls.

 

Of course if I'm wrong abou this and ME:A has a vast open world and is the greatest thing since Jesus walked on water then I'll happily come back here and have one of you guys serve me up a fat slice of humble pie, because on this occasion I would like to be proven wrong.

 

I like open world games, but all I wanted really out of ME was more open maps so they didn't feel like corridor shooters all the time.  But if they pull off a open world(Mass effect tam is different than DA team, I've hated most dragon age games, and loved all ME games overall) it will be awesome IMO.