Open world or level based?

[mkreku]

Why anyone would want to "pull off an Oblivion" boggles me to no end

In the context of game worlds (do you know which thread you're replying to?), why wouldn't developers want to pull off an Oblivion? What was so fatally wrong with Oblivion's open world design that mimicking it "boggles" you?

[SteveThaiBinh]

Why anyone would want to "pull off an Oblivion" boggles me to no end

In the context of game worlds (do you know which thread you're replying to?), why wouldn't developers want to pull off an Oblivion? What was so fatally wrong with Oblivion's open world design that mimicking it "boggles" you?

I don't know. The cities and countryside of Oblivion felt rather empty and lifeless. Was that a design decision, or does the streaming/open world approach require more memory, so that less can be devoted to populating the world with interesting things and people?

[mkreku]

I don't understand why you guys are having such a difficult time to separate open world design with content. If a world feels "empty and lifeless", don't you think that's because the developers failed in providing you with the content you wanted? Why do you think it has anything to do with the world not having loading times or being big? Do you think Oblivion would have felt "full and living" if you'd been interrupted by loading screen every five minutes? Or if they had put their walking-dictionary-npc's all in one tiny room? I don't. But I consider myself capable of looking past the flaws of Oblivion and seeing what actually worked well in that game, and the world and the immediate access you had to it were some of them.

[Pop]

Yeah, Oblivion's gameworld was like a Mass Effect side mission on a grand scale. When you could fast travel, you did, because there wasn't anything out there besides alchemical ingredients to collect and undistinguished dungeons to plunder.

 

I don't understand why you guys are having such a difficult time to separate open world design with content.

Open worlds require bigger and better content to make them work. Play something like the Godfather game and, while it's a relatively accurate mapping of New York / New Jersey in the 1940s, it feels really, really sparse. It doesn't feel lived-in or alive the way an actual city does, and that casts an air of falsity over the entire proceedings. Most open-world games have this problem. It works in something like GTA where there's opportunities for constant no-limit / no consequence action, but in an RPG it's not as effective.

 

Do you think Oblivion would have felt "full and living" if you'd been interrupted by loading screen every five minutes?

Absolutely, if that loading screen entailed more NPCs, better AI and actual events.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Pop

[mkreku]

Do you think Oblivion would have felt "full and living" if you'd been interrupted by loading screen every five minutes?

Absolutely, if that loading screen entailed more NPCs, better AI and actual events.

But it doesn't. All it entails is more dead time waiting for the player. Loading times is not exactly a seal of quality.

[Pop]

In that case, I don't really care.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Pop

[Humodour]

I don't understand why you guys are having such a difficult time to separate open world design with content. If a world feels "empty and lifeless", don't you think that's because the developers failed in providing you with the content you wanted?

 

mkreku: Your points would be valid and the best choice in some circumstances. E.g. you have no time limit, your employees don't get bored of doing the same thing over and over again, and your writers don't run out of quest ideas and unique ways to write dialogue for a character.

 

But let's be reasonable here: I don't know any game company that doesn't have strict deadlines, and I don't know any writer who can pump out good stuff day after day without starting to repeat himself in some way.

 

Given the resources available, development studios cannot logically produce a game that is not only wide in scope, but also consistently deep for that entire scope. Most people recognise this, which is why we don't feel Oblivion is Obsidian's style, and why we feel that Oblivion SHOULDN'T be Obsidian's style.

 

On the other hand, what SHOULD be Obsidian's style is the illusion of choice and the illusion of scope, combined with appropriate amounts of real choice and scope.

 

Methods for achieving this include: focusing on a few specific areas in a world, ensuring that said areas are deeply detailed, immersive and non-linear, then somehow making it appear as though there is much more to the world. Bloodlines does this by implying the other areas aren't important to your character, whilst fallout does this by arbitrarily restricting the map and only showing key settlements.

 

Another method used to imply non-linearity and choice is to unveil areas in a fairly linear fashion, but at a speed much faster than the player can reasonably explore/understand the previous area(s), up to a certain point, such as half-way through the plot (so they have time to catch up and don't get too overwhelmed). Slightly overwhelming the player in this way can make a fairly linear game seem like so much more to the player. E.g. Torment and Bloodlines. In Torment, the first half of the plot is really quite linear, however to get from any point a to point b in the plot often opens up access to one area for the plot and 2 more areas in general. Essentially it boils down to most players spending 2/3 to 3/4 of their time in the first half of the game, then only once they're satisfied do they move on. In this way the player feels like the scope is large and the choices many; they certainly don't feel like the world has been arbitrarily limited in scope. However, since much of the story is still yet to come, by the end of the game they also feel satisfied that the game had a sufficiently deep story and atmosphere.

 

Smart game design can often do more than exhaustive game design.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Krezack

[bronzepoem]

I want to have a open world just like fallout.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Open world is akin to Oblivion and Gothic, where whatever you do, there won't be any loading once you start playing.\

 

:Blinks: Did you play the same Oblivion I did?

[Spider]

Already been pointed out. My memory was a bit fuzzy about that. But I've already explained that too.

[mkreku]

mkreku: Your points would be valid and the best choice in some circumstances. E.g. you have no time limit, your employees don't get bored of doing the same thing over and over again, and your writers don't run out of quest ideas and unique ways to write dialogue for a character.

Isn't that the same as a car manufacturer saying "We can only build ten good cars. Every car after that will be bad because our employees are sick of building the same car over and over again"? Don't forget that being a game developer is still a job. It may be menial sometimes, but that's the nature of jobs.

 

Given the resources available, development studios cannot logically produce a game that is not only wide in scope, but also consistently deep for that entire scope.

Not every square inch of a world has to be filled with deep and meaningful dialogue. I was replaying Deus Ex last night and stumbled across Shannon flirting with a random guard. Not deep, not meaningful, but oh so important for building an atmosphere and that feeling of "you'll always find something around the corner if you bother to look".

 

Besides, I know a few developers who can be wide in scope AND provide great content. To be top of the line, you need to put in top of the line effort.

 

On the other hand, what SHOULD be Obsidian's style is the illusion of choice and the illusion of scope, combined with appropriate amounts of real choice and scope.

I'm pretty sure the Obsidian team themselves can decide what their style is or should be. My view of them is that they have world class writers. If they can manage to get themselves world class coders and world class world/content builders, they would be near unbeatable. I have high hopes for Alpha Protocol.

 

Methods for achieving this include: focusing on a few specific areas in a world, ensuring that said areas are deeply detailed, immersive and non-linear, then somehow making it appear as though there is much more to the world. Bloodlines does this by implying the other areas aren't important to your character, whilst fallout does this by arbitrarily restricting the map and only showing key settlements.

I thought Bloodlines had excellent writing and character design, but they completely failed in making a believable world. No matter where I went in that game, I felt like I was playing in a doll house or a box.

 

All games focus on smaller areas of interest placed in bigger, more generic areas. Even the greatest sand box games ever do this. The trick is providing the player with a balanced enough world where getting from one point of interest to another is as much fun as interacting with said points of interest. This can be done by comparatively small means, if you've built your game world interesting enough. Hide a hidden package/unique jump somewhere (GTA: Vice City), execute a random script that moves around the map (Boiling Point's faction firefights), make an obscure path that leads to a unique enemy or chest (the Gothic games), or just randomly add small signs of dedication and love all over the place (all really good games do this). It doesn't necessarily have to be as complex as well-written quests or intricate dialogues. Small things matter too.

 

Smart game design can often do more than exhaustive game design.

I agree whole-heartedly. But I disagree with your view on games. You took as an example of non-linearity Planescape: Torment. That made me realize we probably think the same, just on different scales. Torment to me is a completely linear and boxed-in game. No matter that you sometimes have a few side-quests luring you from one small, square map to another, it still doesn't feel open-ended to me. I see your point though, but I need much, much more freedom than that for it to fall under my definition of non-linearity/open-endedness.

[Master Assassin]

As long as there's no loading times, I guess I couldn't be too upset. Like some have said, maybe open-world might not be the best idea, but I would not want it to be overly restrictive either.

[Humodour]

mkreku: Your points would be valid and the best choice in some circumstances. E.g. you have no time limit, your employees don't get bored of doing the same thing over and over again, and your writers don't run out of quest ideas and unique ways to write dialogue for a character.

Isn't that the same as a car manufacturer saying "We can only build ten good cars. Every car after that will be bad because our employees are sick of building the same car over and over again"? Don't forget that being a game developer is still a job. It may be menial sometimes, but that's the nature of jobs.

 

The difference is that a car manufacturer doesn't need to rely on his creative muse for good quality in his work.

 

Anyway, I generally agree with what you say. I guess my point is that I completely understand why Obsidian probably won't go for uber open-endedness and I am convinced they'll provide lots of choice and depth regardless of this. To the point that people won't be complaining that AP isn't open-ended enough.

[BloodyVendetta]

Ok I havent read this complete topic so ya. In GameInformer It reads With no standard CIA support network,it's up to Michael to follow leads ,talk to his contancts and foind out how to clear his name. The way this plays out conceptually is like Assassin's Creed (in STRUCTURE not mechanics) <-- notice that same STRUCTURE as Assassins Creed as in Open worlded sandbox style or however you want to call it. In the game it talks about side quests/missions which leads me to believe that is a open world game. Also, it says you can have numerous missions going on in diffrent cities which means you can travel to any of those at any time you want so you dont have to complete one mission to get to another neccesarily.It even says you have safehouses in every city... remind you of any game that has the abbreviation GTA. in my opinion they would make a open world game because we want an open world game I think most people would prefer an open world game over a straight forward mission to mission to another mission with save and checkpoints.

[fastpunk]

I'm pretty sure that Obsidian will create a few big areas that are broken down into smaller chunks, connected by loading screens. It's quite all right for me, as long as quests involve thorough exploration of all areas in a non linear fashion. Since they're using the Unreal Engine 3 (right? ), I think loading times will be quite OK.

[bronzepoem]

Why level based? It could be reputation based, force based, faction based, passport based and gender based(W.C.)

Level based is so rigid and Obsidian won't give us a linear game. As I know, there is no the concept of "level" in AP.

Edited April 14, 2008 by bronzepoem

[bronzepoem]

I agree whole-heartedly. But I disagree with your view on games. You took as an example of non-linearity Planescape: Torment. That made me realize we probably think the same, just on different scales. Torment to me is a completely linear and boxed-in game. No matter that you sometimes have a few side-quests luring you from one small, square map to another, it still doesn't feel open-ended to me. I see your point though, but I need much, much more freedom than that for it to fall under my definition of non-linearity/open-endedness.

Yes, PST is a completely linear boxed-in game in today view. But the amazing world and so many funny NPCs give us enough exploring feeling. So we completely forgot it's a boxed-in game.

Now we could ask the question:

Edited April 14, 2008 by bronzepoem

[Humodour]

I love bronzepoem.

 

I completely agree with him - Oblivion might seem big and open, but it's really limited in depth. He hits the nail on the head when says "if we play Oblivion for a while we get tired and feel alone". The game gets shallow. It is for precisely this reason I'd prefer Obsidian stick to a more closed off world.

 

Edit: And judging by the poll, most people agree.

Edited April 14, 2008 by Krezack

[bronzepoem]

I love bronzepoem.

 

I completely agree with him - Oblivion might seem big and open, but it's really limited in depth. He hits the nail on the head when says "if we play Oblivion for a while we get tired and feel alone". The game gets shallow. It is for precisely this reason I'd prefer Obsidian stick to a more closed off world.

 

Edit: And judging by the poll, most people agree.

I remember there was one quest in Oblivion which player should pretend a punter to inquiry some killers who pretend to prostitutes. When I follow the get in the house and be inviting to go to bed, the only dialogue I can choose is "go to hell

!". God, the quest designer should be cursed. I'm sure Obsidian designers will give me the choice to throw away my armor and jump into bed. Yes, Oblivion is closed off in depth.

 

But I don't think it's the false of freedom. Why we feel alone and get tired in Oblivion? It's not because the world is too big or too open, but because we can't find a wonderful quest or an memorable NPC in the world. We know that there won't be any amazing adventure waiting for us in the world. So we do not have exploring desire even the world is big and open.

In my opinion, big and open is good feature but not enough. Only a big, open and abundant world is a best world. It's true open world could support believable feeling. A big world could accommodate more content. So why refuse them? non-linearity/open-endedness world design will be a certain trend in future. It just like the changing from 2D TO 3D. A smart 2D design can do much greater than a bourgeois 3D design. But we can't see any 2D game today.

We can't deny that the Gamebro engine which Oblivion useing is the best engine for RPG today. Bethesda spend 2 years on it. As we know Oblivion sold 5 million copies in global market. I can say 90% sales owe to the outstanding Gamebro engine. Bethesda use it to create a very potential world. But Bethesda don't have world class writers to fill the world with outstanding content. Another shortcoming of Oblivion is players don't have the right to make choice in the game. Don't like novel, The biggest predominance of RPG is player could join the story and make their own choices. If we can't chose our own way, the game is just a novel with graphic. That's why I prefer non-linearity RPG. In a non-linearity game we could have more choices.

A good engine is a must for a great game. Fallout have a wonderful engine designed by smart Tim Cain, we could using equipments and skills everywhere. Also Baldur's gate won't be so successful without infinity engine. Obsidian could write the best RPG content. What they last need is an outstanding engine.