Living world?

[agewisdom]

I think Living Worlds should be implemented even in the outside environment. Gothic 1 and 2 were especially good at these. You could see different creatures being very territorial. Sometimes, they would fight each other. At other times, luring creatures like wolves into a village would result in the NPCs fighting off these creatures.

 

Like norolim above, I don't see why we should equate a living world = sandbox games ala Skyrim.

[SunBroSolaire]

I like the idea, but I also think it would be cool if there were some type of script for the passage of time. For example, as you travel through the woods it's turning to dusk, but it only turns to nighttime when you finally arrive at the village. Then you sleep at the inn, and when you wake up, it's morning. I don't think it's supposed to be a totally open world..? If it's not completely open, I think a night/day cycle that follows the story rather than the player would be better. If it is open, I would prefer more of a dynamic night/day cycle.

[Drakxii]

Please please. Nothing makes a game feel more gamy then when the world revolves around the PC.

[Freshock]

A living world is something I think they've talked about officially before? However I really think they should make the world "alive", on every subject in the forums regarding the developing there are people saying "they need to focus on other things to decrease developing time/money" but this I really think they should use time on - and money. It's a big part of the game for me, I don't want to be the only one walking around.

[Ieo]

Baldur's Gate had this to some extent. The streets would be come deserted except for the "night life" in some cases; vendors would close shop at night in both BG1 and BG2, that I remember. That was a nice touch, and I certainly would like to see that at least to the same level.

[Pshaw]

I like the feeling that living worlds can add to a game. So long as you have the ability to wait/rest for a specific amount of time in order to get in touch with people you might need or the ability to go into their houses at night and wake them up. Also they need to be done properly where not everybody has the same bed time. I hate it when I'm in a city and suddenly everybody all walks back to their houses at the same time. In that same regard some people, perhaps less reputable people, should be out and about only at night.

 

So with all that said I like it but I think to do it properly you do need to reallocate a fairly large amount of resources for a very small amount of flavor. Flavor that at times can be frustrating. It would have been a nice stretch goal while the kickstarter was going on but now I don't think it would be worthwhile to add anymore stretch goals via paypal.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Pshaw

[Espadon]

Meh NPC schedules are overrated IMO. It's not that i am against it mind you, but it gets old very fast, and i don't really care whether they can work, drink, eat, sleep and so on if the character themself is not interesting, i mean, the illusion will be ruined the moment they open their mouth. I am all for a living, breathing world, but NPC schedules is one of the least important things to make a world believeable. When it comes to making a game world feel alive, i think things like interesting characters and companions, an exciting and diverse world and good lore is far more important.

[Ieo]

Meh NPC schedules are overrated IMO. It's not that i am against it mind you, but it gets old very fast, and i don't really care whether they can work, drink, eat, sleep and so on if the character themself is not interesting, i mean, the illusion will be ruined the moment they open their mouth. I am all for a living, breathing world, but NPC schedules is one of the least important things to make a world believeable. When it comes to making a game world feel alive, i think things like interesting characters and companions, an exciting and diverse world and good lore is far more important.

 

It adds immersive flavor. I'm pretty sure BG's implementation was around #2 in the poll, and that'd be fine with me. Keep in mind that it's very possible (BG did this) to create quests that are tied with some basic "living" mechanics like the day/night cycle--like you can break into the smithy after dark and steal that sword, or sneak into that house during the day when the owners are at work to look for evidence. etc. Adding variables like this helps with the variety of quest types that can be implemented.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Ieo

[Hassat Hunter]

Although the IE games didn't have this, the Elder Scrolls ceirtanly didn't start it. Ultima 7 from 1991 had a living world, where people slept at night and did chores at day. I am sure there are others, just using it as an example. Having people not loitering at the same spot day and night would benefit the game, and I am sure it can't be that hard to code(?)

Ehm, IE games (or atleast Baldur's Gate 1 and 2) had day/night settings for the characters. Unless I get you wrong and Ultima 7 had more than that. Pretty sure everyone in Morrowind always stayed at the same place, it was from Oblivion onwards that they moved. Like, naked in the night. Down a bridge and dying. Being impossible to find sometimes.

 

I think a a little immersion is a bad trade for all the issues it could create when night/day states are enough.

I like the idea, but I also think it would be cool if there were some type of script for the passage of time. For example, as you travel through the woods it's turning to dusk, but it only turns to nighttime when you finally arrive at the village. Then you sleep at the inn, and when you wake up, it's morning. I don't think it's supposed to be a totally open world..? If it's not completely open, I think a night/day cycle that follows the story rather than the player would be better. If it is open, I would prefer more of a dynamic night/day cycle.

You haven't played Baldur's Gate, have you?

Sleeping takes about 8 hours. Travelling time depends on distance.

 

And no, having an always day city isn't good even for a "closed world" as you would lose the many different things night can offer you, such as rogue quests, questionable merchants and so much more...

[Espadon]

Meh NPC schedules are overrated IMO. It's not that i am against it mind you, but it gets old very fast, and i don't really care whether they can work, drink, eat, sleep and so on if the character themself is not interesting, i mean, the illusion will be ruined the moment they open their mouth. I am all for a living, breathing world, but NPC schedules is one of the least important things to make a world believeable. When it comes to making a game world feel alive, i think things like interesting characters and companions, an exciting and diverse world and good lore is far more important.

 

It adds immersive flavor. I'm pretty sure BG's implementation was around #2 in the poll, and that'd be fine with me. Keep in mind that it's very possible (BG did this) to create quests that are tied with some basic "living" mechanics like the day/night cycle--like you can break into the smithy after dark and steal that sword, or sneak into that house during the day when the owners are at work to look for evidence. etc. Adding variables like this helps with the variety of quest types that can be implemented.

 

I'm not saying the NPCs necessarily have to just stand there and wait for you, or wander aimlessly around 24/7. Ofcause it would be preferably if they atleast slept at night. All i'm saying is that they don't have to be very complex to make me happy. Not in this kind of game, not when there is so many things i consider more important in making a gameworld believeable and not when the game has a limited budget, atleast compared to games like Skyrim. A living, breathing world is so much more than just complex NPC schedules.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Espadon

[SunBroSolaire]

Although the IE games didn't have this, the Elder Scrolls ceirtanly didn't start it. Ultima 7 from 1991 had a living world, where people slept at night and did chores at day. I am sure there are others, just using it as an example. Having people not loitering at the same spot day and night would benefit the game, and I am sure it can't be that hard to code(?)

Ehm, IE games (or atleast Baldur's Gate 1 and 2) had day/night settings for the characters. Unless I get you wrong and Ultima 7 had more than that. Pretty sure everyone in Morrowind always stayed at the same place, it was from Oblivion onwards that they moved. Like, naked in the night. Down a bridge and dying. Being impossible to find sometimes.

 

I think a a little immersion is a bad trade for all the issues it could create when night/day states are enough.

I like the idea, but I also think it would be cool if there were some type of script for the passage of time. For example, as you travel through the woods it's turning to dusk, but it only turns to nighttime when you finally arrive at the village. Then you sleep at the inn, and when you wake up, it's morning. I don't think it's supposed to be a totally open world..? If it's not completely open, I think a night/day cycle that follows the story rather than the player would be better. If it is open, I would prefer more of a dynamic night/day cycle.

You haven't played Baldur's Gate, have you?

Sleeping takes about 8 hours. Travelling time depends on distance.

 

And no, having an always day city isn't good even for a "closed world" as you would lose the many different things night can offer you, such as rogue quests, questionable merchants and so much more...

a) Baldur's Gate is the most open world of all of the IE games, b) I didn't say I wanted always day cities, just that in a more linear game it wouldn't be that great to have a real time day/night cycle.

[Metabot]

Yea I'm not sure what would be wrong with adding this stuff in. It could add to wuests as well because you might have to find out where npcs are at certain periods of time. That is, if there is no quest compass and markers.

 

The argumebt that IE games didnt do certain things isn't always the best argument. I don't think PE is meant to be like the IE games in every single aspect.

[Metabot]

I am okay with the idea, but this is not another Elder Scrolls game. A lot of times I see the term 'Living World' the terms 'Bethesda', 'Elder Scrolls' float up. The old IE games were not living worlds, and if we are to stay true to that formula, then I am thinking we should go light on the Living World feature or even avoid it altogether.

 

Although the IE games didn't have this, the Elder Scrolls ceirtanly didn't start it. Ultima 7 from 1991 had a living world, where people slept at night and did chores at day. I am sure there are others, just using it as an example. Having people not loitering at the same spot day and night would benefit the game, and I am sure it can't be that hard to code(?)

 

And to moridin84: Ultima 7 was not a sandbox game, though you could move freely in the world, there was a strong plot and story.

 

Lol so a sandbox game automatically doesn't have a strong plot and if a game does have a strong plot it necessarily isn't a sandbox game? Ideally, a sandbox game should have multiple interesting plots that the player can get involved in in some way. This us where skyrim fails entirely.

[Ieo]

And to moridin84: Ultima 7 was not a sandbox game, though you could move freely in the world, there was a strong plot and story.

 

Lol so a sandbox game automatically doesn't have a strong plot and if a game does have a strong plot it necessarily isn't a sandbox game? Ideally, a sandbox game should have multiple interesting plots that the player can get involved in in some way. This us where skyrim fails entirely.

 

I'm pretty sure the likes of Oblivion and Skyrim are open world games, not sandbox. Minecraft is sandbox.

[Rhylin]

I would love a ultima style living world.

[Metabot]

And to moridin84: Ultima 7 was not a sandbox game, though you could move freely in the world, there was a strong plot and story.

 

Lol so a sandbox game automatically doesn't have a strong plot and if a game does have a strong plot it necessarily isn't a sandbox game? Ideally, a sandbox game should have multiple interesting plots that the player can get involved in in some way. This us where skyrim fails entirely.

 

I'm pretty sure the likes of Oblivion and Skyrim are open world games, not sandbox. Minecraft is sandbox.

 

I've seen them referred to as sandbox games multiple times.

[Hassat Hunter]

a) Baldur's Gate is the most open world of all of the IE games, b) I didn't say I wanted always day cities, just that in a more linear game it wouldn't be that great to have a real time day/night cycle.

A) With the dungeon, 2 cities and other stuff, it's most likely to resemle BG.

B) We got 2 full cities. I am pretty sure, like BG(2) awesome day/night things can be done with them. Baldur's Gate was great during nighttime. Athkatla somewhat less, though I still couldn't imagine it being always daytime. As well as with the other outdoor maps. Even linear.

Yea I'm not sure what would be wrong with adding this stuff in. It could add to wuests as well because you might have to find out where npcs are at certain periods of time. That is, if there is no quest compass and markers.

 

The argumebt that IE games didnt do certain things isn't always the best argument. I don't think PE is meant to be like the IE games in every single aspect.

They could do that for one (or other certain) NPC then (like the horribly non-functional 'boogieman' sidequest in BG1). No point in making all NPC's act that way. It's no fun finding your questgiver out of 17 potential locations. In Oblivion/Skyrim a marker and big arrow might help with that, but I loathe to introduce that here. So it's just more added tedium, no gain (IMO).

 

Second point is true though. There are certainly things that can be improved upon compared to IE...