Aller au contenu

Photo

Steps to making a good open world game


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
35 réponses à ce sujet

#1
Zekka

Zekka
  • Members
  • 1 186 messages
I made a list of things I would like to see Open world games do for me to consider them successful. I have yet to play a game that does all of this but some other open world game's I have played have done most of them. Share your thoughts on what you disagree with, agree on, what you would change in my list or add and remove.

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. 

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 wolf in a desert. 

Make sure to never allow the player to become to over powered, there 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.
 


#2
N7Jamaican

N7Jamaican
  • Members
  • 1 778 messages

Gwent was terrible. But yes, hopefully there will be some fun mini-games.  Better than Quasar.



#3
Zekka

Zekka
  • Members
  • 1 186 messages

Woow, what happened to the font?



#4
N7Jamaican

N7Jamaican
  • Members
  • 1 778 messages

Woow, what happened to the font?

 

Looks like a copy and paste from MS Word (or another word document).



#5
I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE

I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE
  • Members
  • 17 347 messages

Gwent was terrible


False.
  • Ajensis, Fandango, KCMeredith et 1 autre aiment ceci

#6
The Antagonist

The Antagonist
  • Members
  • 529 messages

The post is a little long so I didn't read it, but I hope it's not promoting TW3 because that game's open world was just like all open worlds in gaming: empty, boring and tedious to traverse, repetitive, and the game had terrible pacing due to the open world.



#7
Zekka

Zekka
  • Members
  • 1 186 messages

The post is a little long so I didn't read it, but I hope it's not promoting TW3 because that game's open world was just like all open worlds in gaming: empty, boring and tedious to traverse, repetitive, and the game had terrible pacing due to the open world.


You should read the post then
  • Sylvius the Mad aime ceci

#8
Monica21

Monica21
  • Members
  • 5 603 messages
Yeah, that was a lot of tl;dr. Sorry, OP. My thoughts, I don't think you can have a good open world game and good pacing. Inquisition has some really great story elements, but everything in between just falls on its face. I hate saying that because I really want to love the game, but when I'm less than halfway through and have enough power to get to the temple but still have 20 unfinished quests, 5 areas to unlock, and am only level 15, that's bad pacing.

I don't care about day/night cycles and I only think those things matter if you do silly things like pretending your character has to sleep. I just want a good story, interesting characters, and for my choices to matter. Give me an immersive RPG and I won't notice the rest. Or at least I won't complain about it too much. ;)
  • Lord Bolton aime ceci

#9
Broganisity

Broganisity
  • Members
  • 5 336 messages

Could you bulletpoint or number your points or something? :huh:



#10
Zekka

Zekka
  • Members
  • 1 186 messages

Could you bulletpoint or number your points or something? :huh:

My whole post was spontaneous, it would take me a lot of extra time to do that.

#11
Jaquio

Jaquio
  • Members
  • 255 messages

I read it all, so don't worry.

 

Lots of solid points in there.  Definitely a focus on clean mechanics in your vision, and I can appreciate that.  I think the bugginess of the game is what keeps Fallout New Vegas from receiving the praise it otherwise deserves.

 

 

The funny thing is that there are lot of little things that the games get wrong that affect the immersion.  One thing is unrealistic economies, both in terms of the currency system/value of goods, but also in terms of city planning and daily activities.  Rivet City in Fallout 3 springs to mind - it's a city built out of an aircraft carrier sitting on an irradiated river surrounded by super mutants.  Cool concept, but what do these people eat?  What do they drink?  How can it afford to employ so many scientists without any reliable food supply?  It just makes no sense.  On the other hand, going into the brickmaker's village in the Swamp in The Witcher, or seeing the lumber mill the first time you go into Riverwood in Skyrim, that economic activity makes the world make sense.

 

Another thing I'd like to see is giving more people names even if they're not quest characters.  Running into a town and seeing Al, Bob, Cathy and then 20 people named "townsman" is weird.  I recognize that unnamed folk spawn in and out, but it wouldn't be too hard to just create a large name bank to randomly pull from.

 

I also think most side quests should develop organically from exploring.  Say you find a ruin, and you meet someone inside that's looking for item X to sell back home.  It opens up a quest line that's in the spirit of the moment, rather than having someone in town tell you to run to the ruin and collect X.  Let the player find interesting places unattached to the main quest on their own in the wilderness.



#12
Zekka

Zekka
  • Members
  • 1 186 messages

I read it all, so don't worry.

 

Lots of solid points in there.  Definitely a focus on clean mechanics in your vision, and I can appreciate that.  I think the bugginess of the game is what keeps Fallout New Vegas from receiving the praise it otherwise deserves.

 

 

The funny thing is that there are lot of little things that the games get wrong that affect the immersion.  One thing is unrealistic economies, both in terms of the currency system/value of goods, but also in terms of city planning and daily activities.  Rivet City in Fallout 3 springs to mind - it's a city built out of an aircraft carrier sitting on an irradiated river surrounded by super mutants.  Cool concept, but what do these people eat?  What do they drink?  How can it afford to employ so many scientists without any reliable food supply?  It just makes no sense.  On the other hand, going into the brickmaker's village in the Swamp in The Witcher, or seeing the lumber mill the first time you go into Riverwood in Skyrim, that economic activity makes the world make sense.

 

Another thing I'd like to see is giving more people names even if they're not quest characters.  Running into a town and seeing Al, Bob, Cathy and then 20 people named "townsman" is weird.  I recognize that unnamed folk spawn in and out, but it wouldn't be too hard to just create a large name bank to randomly pull from.

 

I also think most side quests should develop organically from exploring.  Say you find a ruin, and you meet someone inside that's looking for item X to sell back home.  It opens up a quest line that's in the spirit of the moment, rather than having someone in town tell you to run to the ruin and collect X.  Let the player find interesting places unattached to the main quest on their own in the wilderness.

I like your idea about giving people in the world names. I feel like Fallout New Vegas did this well and badly, it named bandits and faction members properly then when it gets to town members they get a generic name and you can't even initiate dialogue with them.

 

Fallout 3 had the problem you mentioned and hopefully F4 solves this.

 

Some of the things you mentioned, I didn't bother to add because I feel like they would benefit an rpg rather than an open world game.

 

I like your idea about Side quests, New Vegas did this and Gothic 2, which I just beat for the 2nd time a couple minutes ago does this as well. It gives more meaning to certain locations and intertwines quests together.



#13
Broganisity

Broganisity
  • Members
  • 5 336 messages

My whole post was spontaneous, it would take me a lot of extra time to do that.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I've read your post, and while I agree with you on some things, I oppose you on others. More specifically, I disagree with your requirement that an Open World game require no loading times. I also believe some of your other thoughts are not required for and/or exclusive to the concept of the Open World but that is neither here nor there.


------------------------------

On the topic of 'steps to making a good Open World game', I believe these two things should be taken into account the most in regards to an Open world game:

---------

- Separation of Main and Side Content:

The player should be free to pursue whatever tackles their fancy in regards to what an open world game has to offer.

One of Inquisition's greatest flaws is that you are required to do side missions by way of explore-able areas, collectibles, and War Table Missions. On their own these things are not inherently bad and are, in fact, one of the highlights of an open world type game. . .but that the game was made in such a way that it was necessary to do side content to progress in the story ceases to truly make side content what it would claim itself to be: Side content. Inquisition attempts to use this mandated side content to make the player feel as though they are 'building the organization up' yet, when the developers have to send out a message telling people to 'Leave the Hinterlands to continue the story' it becomes clear that such a plan was not thought through.

Dragon's Dogma (and most other open world games: Dying Light, The Elder Scrolls/Fallout series, et cetera) do not require you to do side content in order to progress. Now, the side content gives you goods such as equipment, experience, or money along with story, immersion, and all such things but you can skip it at your leisure and simply progress through the main story and to its end.

Now, the main story might be more difficult without such things under your belt and then one might bring up such claims as 'grinding mobs for experience is side content' or 'what about side content that affects the main story' but still these things are not inherently required for you to play through the game's story though they may affect the difficultly or end respectively. Such problems are not unique to Open World games and thus not the topic being discussed, however.

---------

- Concerning Load Times: Just because a game claiming itself to be open world has load times does not mean it is not an Open World game.

An open world game, at its most basic definition, would be a game where you are not forced to go in any designated direction for any particular purpose. But that definition is suspect as one could claim most any game then to be an Open World game, so let us use some examples of games that claim to be open world and see if we cannot come up with any similarities:


Spoiler


---------

Each of these 'open world' games have a different utilization (or lack thereof) of loading screens but are still considered such by the creators and the players (for the most part). This would mean that the inclusion of loading screens is not required for an open world game. . .though one would note that none of the games listed above feature loading screens while navigating the main map. That'd be silly.

------------------------------

That's all I've got for now, may pop back in later.



#14
Zekka

Zekka
  • Members
  • 1 186 messages

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I've read your post, and while I agree with you on some things, I oppose you on others. More specifically, I disagree with your requirement that an Open World game require no loading times. I also believe some of your other thoughts are not required for and/or exclusive to the concept of the Open World but that is neither here nor there.


------------------------------

On the topic of 'steps to making a good Open World game', I believe these two things should be taken into account the most in regards to an Open world game:

---------

- Separation of Main and Side Content:

The player should be free to pursue whatever tackles their fancy in regards to what an open world game has to offer.

One of Inquisition's greatest flaws is that you are required to do side missions by way of explore-able areas, collectibles, and War Table Missions. On their own these things are not inherently bad and are, in fact, one of the highlights of an open world type game. . .but that the game was made in such a way that it was necessary to do side content to progress in the story ceases to truly make side content what it would claim itself to be: Side content. Inquisition attempts to use this mandated side content to make the player feel as though they are 'building the organization up' yet, when the developers have to send out a message telling people to 'Leave the Hinterlands to continue the story' it becomes clear that such a plan was not thought through.

Dragon's Dogma (and most other open world games: Dying Light, The Elder Scrolls/Fallout series, et cetera) do not require you to do side content in order to progress. Now, the side content gives you goods such as equipment, experience, or money along with story, immersion, and all such things but you can skip it at your leisure and simply progress through the main story and to its end.

Now, the main story might be more difficult without such things under your belt and then one might bring up such claims as 'grinding mobs for experience is side content' or 'what about side content that affects the main story' but still these things are not inherently required for you to play through the game's story though they may affect the difficultly or end respectively. Such problems are not unique to Open World games and thus not the topic being discussed, however.

---------

- Concerning Load Times: Just because a game claiming itself to be open world has load times does not mean it is not an Open World game.

An open world game, at its most basic definition, would be a game where you are not forced to go in any designated direction for any particular purpose. But that definition is suspect as one could claim most any game then to be an Open World game, so let us use some examples of games that claim to be open world and see if we cannot come up with any similarities:


Spoiler


---------

Each of these 'open world' games have a different utilization (or lack thereof) of loading screens but are still considered such by the creators and the players (for the most part). This would mean that the inclusion of loading screens is not required for an open world game. . .though one would note that none of the games listed above feature loading screens while navigating the main map. That'd be silly.

------------------------------

That's all I've got for now, may pop back in later.

Hmmm, I'll agree on making side content optional. I don't remember many open world games I've played that force you to complete side content. Side content can affect the main story and it can open the player up to more lore but most of it shouldn't be required.

You would be right, not every thing I typed has to do with an open world but it can greatly enhance the experience.

 

Now, I feel that since were in 2015 and ME: Andromeda is coming in 2016 that it is right for me to expect no loading screens except for things like reloading a save, starting the game or crossing on a whole new area like an island, continent or DLC location.

 

Some of those games you mentioned are older and some aren't even open world. TW1 wasn't an open world game and I think CDPR have learned by now not to have loading screens except crossing to larger expanses of land.

Same with Bethesda, they aren't having loading screens in Fallout 4 for entering houses and other locations either.

If the leak for ME: Andromeda is true too, it seems like it won't have load screens either.



#15
pdusen

pdusen
  • Members
  • 1 788 messages

Now, I feel that since were in 2015 and ME: Andromeda is coming in 2016 that it is right for me to expect no loading screens except for things like reloading a save, starting the game or crossing on a whole new area like an island, continent or DLC location.

That's all well and good, but what's the basis for that expectation?

Loading screens don't exist because developers think its fun to make you wait. They exist because the hardware you're running on simply can't load the data fast enough for you not to notice. This is especially true of consoles and low-end PCs, neither of which are very powerful.

Granted, there is a lot you can do to help alleviate loading times now, such as asset streaming, and newer open world games are getting a lot better about it (as you mentioned, in TW3 it mostly happens when fast travelling huge distances or switching maps), but I doubt we will see them go away completely any time soon.

#16
Broganisity

Broganisity
  • Members
  • 5 336 messages

Precisely, pdusen. While a lack of loading screens is a nice thing, I would not expect or demand them to be required as they are often times a necessity for games.



#17
Cyonan

Cyonan
  • Members
  • 19 373 messages

Loading screens are one of those things we'd all love to be rid of, but generally aren't going to go away any time soon. Even a game like The Witcher 3 which has very minimal loading screens, does still have them. The truth of it is that our computers need time to load things and while our technology has advanced a lot we're also asking our machines to load more and more things into the game as our graphics also get more advanced.

 

For invisible walls, I would go as far as to say that you shouldn't use them within the game world itself. If you don't want me getting into an area use a physical barrier like a wall or a cliff too steep to climb up. The only exception is the edges of the maps are okay to use them. New Vegas is one game that was exceptionally bad for this.

 

I don't like entirely leveled enemies, but I do like the rubber band scaling where an area will be level 10 - 20 and enemies will scale within that. If it's intended to be a boss fight like the dragons in DA:I, it should be a pre-defined and unchanging level. This kind of ties into the "don't let the player become overpowered" because mobs that 100% do not scale are very easily over leveled by doing side quests. If you make things strong enough to handle PCs that are doing all the side quests however, then they generally become a requirement to do in order to keep up with the power grade of the enemies you're running into.


  • pdusen aime ceci

#18
Zekka

Zekka
  • Members
  • 1 186 messages

That's all well and good, but what's the basis for that expectation?

Loading screens don't exist because developers think its fun to make you wait. They exist because the hardware you're running on simply can't load the data fast enough for you not to notice. This is especially true of consoles and low-end PCs, neither of which are very powerful.

Granted, there is a lot you can do to help alleviate loading times now, such as asset streaming, and newer open world games are getting a lot better about it (as you mentioned, in TW3 it mostly happens when fast traveling huge distances or switching maps), but I doubt we will see them go away completely any time soon.

I know we won't see them gone completely that's why I put exceptions. What I don't want is loading screens when I enter enter a house or a cave or something like.



#19
Sartoz

Sartoz
  • Members
  • 4 533 messages

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

Quite impressive list and I agree with many of them

 

Load times

Are here to stay. It's part and parcel of the FB3 rendering engine. High resolution textures, make the files quite large and loading them takes time.  The only way out of it is to provide an illusion of doing something, while the new scene textures are quietly loaded in the background.  We, the players are quite smart and if Bio goes this route, they'd better provide a dynamic (ie: changing) illusory "something", otherwise we will catch on real quick.

 

Fetch Quests and Mundane Tasks

Limiting these is preferred. Having the PC who supposedly is responsible for "saving the day"  be given such tasks is so douche and DAI_ish. However, if a few of these can provide unexpected  gems by providing significant "treasures", then they would have a purpose. Quite opposite of boring, I say.

 

By "treasures",  I mean advantages to humanity in resources,  tech, important intelligence information that has game consequences or weapon/shield upgrades or a new Tech/Biotic Power.  Perhaps even coming across an enemy research team whose defeat sets the opposition timetable back or negates a needed resource cache... again, a game setting consequence.

 

Grinding

A good game has no grinding. But, that would be a miracle is game design and story content. For once, a game studio should introduce other units to do the grinding for you, in the background... DAI did this, albeit awkwardly and not very effectively. I expect severe improvements, if Bio goes this route.

 

Everything else is good...



#20
Zekka

Zekka
  • Members
  • 1 186 messages
So, does anyone have anything they would add or remove?

#21
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 769 messages

I read it all, so don't worry.
 
  On the other hand, going into the brickmaker's village in the Swamp in The Witcher, or seeing the lumber mill the first time you go into Riverwood in Skyrim, that economic activity makes the world make sense.


Though I could never figure out how the brickmakers survived all the bloedzuigers and whatnot.

#22
Jaquio

Jaquio
  • Members
  • 255 messages

Though I could never figure out how the brickmakers survived all the bloedzuigers and whatnot.

 

I just assumed their worship of the Water Lords/Vodyanoi provided some protection, that many of the swamp creatures were too fearful of the Water Lords and kept their distance for the most part.  Obviously with occasional issues arising.



#23
Zekka

Zekka
  • Members
  • 1 186 messages

I just assumed their worship of the Water Lords/Vodyanoi provided some protection, that many of the swamp creatures were too fearful of the Water Lords and kept their distance for the most part.  Obviously with occasional issues arising.

Are you guys talking about The Witcher?



#24
Wulfram

Wulfram
  • Members
  • 18 950 messages
I don't see how open world makes any sense at all for the sort of story and setting of Mass Effect. The sort of distances and scale involved just don't fit.

#25
Zekka

Zekka
  • Members
  • 1 186 messages

I don't see how open world makes any sense at all for the sort of story and setting of Mass Effect. The sort of distances and scale involved just don't fit.

A game that is set in space with such a huge scope. Why wouldn't open world work? They tried it in the first game of the series.