Open world or Linear

[AGX-17]

 

 

 

 

I'd love a sandbox, but I don't think they have the team quantity and funds to do it... There's so many more variables to track in a go-anywhere-anytime world.

Sandbox and IE-style don't mix. A sandbox game (à la Minecraft, a pure sandbox, or GTA, a mostly sandbox,) is more about dicking around and making your own fun, not story, companions and combat depth.

 

 

Doesn't have to be one or the other, hense what I said about too many variables to track. I've seen it done in other games, but I don't see the dev-time/dollars to make it happen with PE.

 

 

What game? I'v yet to hear of an IE game or IE-like game with sandbox gameplay.

[Juneau]

Hi all, I'm not talking Sandbox and I do literally mean open world - You can go to places X Y or Z using what ever travel system they have when ever you want compared to linear (think FPS you go here, down this corridor to this place then this place then this place and that is it. you can't revisit or chose where to go next.

[rjshae]

They can do a semi-open world by having a strategic map with some type of grid-based movement system, then placing a combination of set-piece, randomly discovered, and unlocked locales (areas) scattered about the map. That can create a sense of openness by providing access to all of the map while creating uncertainty about what is left to discover. It also allows modders to readily create add-on areas.

[Juneau]

^^ Which is a nice idea. It will be nice to see, not long to go now Year will be over before you know it!

[Ffordesoon]

It's kind of interesting that the IE games have retroactively become "open world" just because so few modern games offer a tenth of their freedom, isn't it?

 

I heard someone call Dragon Age: Origins an "open world RPG" recently, and it made me sad, because people think of any freedom of movement at all as automatically "open world" these days.

 

Just a thought.

[AGX-17]

They can do a semi-open world by having a strategic map with some type of grid-based movement system, then placing a combination of set-piece, randomly discovered, and unlocked locales (areas) scattered about the map. That can create a sense of openness by providing access to all of the map while creating uncertainty about what is left to discover. It also allows modders to readily create add-on areas.

That's basically how Fallout 1 & 2 worked. The problem with that was dearth of locations and the ability to blunder into Enclave Patrols and get exploded with one shot by a Gauss Pistol at level 1-2 with only a 0AC, 0DR, 0DT Vault Suit for "armor." Edited February 8, 2013 by AGX-17

[moridin84]

 

They can do a semi-open world by having a strategic map with some type of grid-based movement system, then placing a combination of set-piece, randomly discovered, and unlocked locales (areas) scattered about the map. That can create a sense of openness by providing access to all of the map while creating uncertainty about what is left to discover. It also allows modders to readily create add-on areas.

That's basically how Fallout 1 & 2 worked. The problem with that was dearth of locations and the ability to blunder into Enclave Patrols and get exploded with one shot by a Gauss Pistol at level 1-2 with only a 0AC, 0DR, 0DT Vault Suit for "armor."

 

I don't find "blundering into Enclave Patrols" to be a "problem". They do exactly what the are supposed to do. 

 

And anyway, Fallout 1 and 2 are actually proper open-world role-playing games. Just old-school ones.

Edited February 8, 2013 by moridin84

[rjshae]

 

 

They can do a semi-open world by having a strategic map with some type of grid-based movement system, then placing a combination of set-piece, randomly discovered, and unlocked locales (areas) scattered about the map. That can create a sense of openness by providing access to all of the map while creating uncertainty about what is left to discover. It also allows modders to readily create add-on areas.

That's basically how Fallout 1 & 2 worked. The problem with that was dearth of locations and the ability to blunder into Enclave Patrols and get exploded with one shot by a Gauss Pistol at level 1-2 with only a 0AC, 0DR, 0DT Vault Suit for "armor."

 

I don't find "blundering into Enclave Patrols" to be a "problem". They do exactly what the are supposed to do. 

 

And anyway, Fallout 1 and 2 are actually proper open-world role-playing games. Just old-school ones.

 

Right. But they don't have to use the fine grid of a Fallout or most of the old Gold Box Games; they could simply use an area grid like they have in many of the strategy games. (Kind of like point-to-point movement in "Curse of the Azure Bonds".) You move into a grid area and you are presented with some number of target locations within that area. Movement between the grid areas is what generates random encounters. There's less fiddling around that way with the pixel-by-pixel movement.

[moridin84]

 

 

 

They can do a semi-open world by having a strategic map with some type of grid-based movement system, then placing a combination of set-piece, randomly discovered, and unlocked locales (areas) scattered about the map. That can create a sense of openness by providing access to all of the map while creating uncertainty about what is left to discover. It also allows modders to readily create add-on areas.

That's basically how Fallout 1 & 2 worked. The problem with that was dearth of locations and the ability to blunder into Enclave Patrols and get exploded with one shot by a Gauss Pistol at level 1-2 with only a 0AC, 0DR, 0DT Vault Suit for "armor."

 

I don't find "blundering into Enclave Patrols" to be a "problem". They do exactly what the are supposed to do. 

 

And anyway, Fallout 1 and 2 are actually proper open-world role-playing games. Just old-school ones.

 

Right. But they don't have to use the fine grid of a Fallout or most of the old Gold Box Games; they could simply use an area grid like they have in many of the strategy games. (Kind of like point-to-point movement in "Curse of the Azure Bonds".) You move into a grid area and you are presented with some number of target locations within that area. Movement between the grid areas is what generates random encounters. There's less fiddling around that way with the pixel-by-pixel movement.

 

Firstly, I'm definitely against random encounters in this game. 

 

Secondly, maybe like Neverwinter Nights 2?

 

Edited February 8, 2013 by moridin84

[rjshae]

^^^ The NWN2 OC map didn't give you full access to all of the map. It was more like the old IE games in that sense. I always felt constrained by that model.

 

As for "random encounters", well set piece encounters with a certain likelihood to occur is roughly equivalent.

[moridin84]

^^^ The NWN2 OC map didn't give you full access to all of the map. It was more like the old IE games in that sense. I always felt constrained by that model.

 

As for "random encounters", well set piece encounters with a certain likelihood to occur is roughly equivalent.

 

Hmm I think the developers said the game is going to have something equivalent to the "acts" that were in Neverwinter Nights 2, where only certain areas are available until you get to passed story "bottlenecks".

[rjshae]

 

^^^ The NWN2 OC map didn't give you full access to all of the map. It was more like the old IE games in that sense. I always felt constrained by that model.

 

As for "random encounters", well set piece encounters with a certain likelihood to occur is roughly equivalent.

 

Hmm I think the developers said the game is going to have something equivalent to the "acts" that were in Neverwinter Nights 2, where only certain areas are available until you get to passed story "bottlenecks".

 

By "acts" I read "unlocked sites". But there's no reason that shouldn't prohibit you from exploring the rest of the map. It just means some locations won't show up until you reach that part of the story. (Like a hidden ruin or some street in a city.)

[JFSOCC]

Firstly, I'm definitely against random encounters in this game.

Ditto.

[moridin84]

 

 

^^^ The NWN2 OC map didn't give you full access to all of the map. It was more like the old IE games in that sense. I always felt constrained by that model.

 

As for "random encounters", well set piece encounters with a certain likelihood to occur is roughly equivalent.

 

Hmm I think the developers said the game is going to have something equivalent to the "acts" that were in Neverwinter Nights 2, where only certain areas are available until you get to passed story "bottlenecks".

 

By "acts" I read "unlocked sites". But there's no reason that shouldn't prohibit you from exploring the rest of the map. It just means some locations won't show up until you reach that part of the story. (Like a hidden ruin or some street in a city.)

 

Well I can see it working that way too. 

[MuseBreaks]

both. like they did in BG2:SOA.

the first part was open (raising the money)

the second part included a linear adventure: spellhold, shark city, underdark, elf city and hell. 

 

best combination

[Luridis]

 

 

 

I'd love a sandbox, but I don't think they have the team quantity and funds to do it... There's so many more variables to track in a go-anywhere-anytime world.

Sandbox and IE-style don't mix. A sandbox game (à la Minecraft, a pure sandbox, or GTA, a mostly sandbox,) is more about dicking around and making your own fun, not story, companions and combat depth.

 

Doesn't have to be one or the other, hense what I said about too many variables to track. I've seen it done in other games, but I don't see the dev-time/dollars to make it happen with PE.

 

What game? I'v yet to hear of an IE game or IE-like game with sandbox gameplay.

 

By that I meant a player party, story driven CRPG, but not necessarily any game built specifically upon the Infinity Engine.

[Juneau]

It is a little sad that a multipathed linear game is classed as open world. However I think there are three generics which is what I'm kinda aiming my question at. I'd like it to be b) but at the same point c) would be cool if not exactly possible/probable

 

a) Linear - You go here, press space to win, go there jump a ledge, go through the only door in the level.....

 

b) Open-World - You can go here, here or here, now that you've figured out some temple is of use to the plot you can go there OR you can try the old hermit by the river OR possibly, if your lucky find out what you need in the scary dark cavern.

 

c) Sandbox - Go where ever you want, in what order you want though some story stuff might not exist yet.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Juneau

[kroska]

I think a mixture of linear and open world works well. You move onto a new place that 'think' that you discovered, have a intro scene to it. Then the player does a few key plot things then can either wander around, go to past locations and do side quests and generally 'F' around till they wish to advance the plot.  Its a main plot with mini side quest plots in between that are optional. 

 

Its really hard to see what would work well for this game because i have no idea how good the actual main plot is. 

[Malekith]

It is a little sad that a multipathed linear game is classed as open world. However I think there are three generics which is what I'm kinda aiming my question at. I'd like it to be b) but at the same point c) would be cool if not exactly possible/probable

 

a) Linear - You go here, press space to win, go there jump a ledge, go through the only door in the level.....

 

b) Open-World - You can go here, here or here, now that you've figured out some temple is of use to the plot you can go there OR you can try the old hermit by the river OR possibly, if your lucky find out what you need in the scary dark cavern.

 

c) Sandbox - Go where ever you want, in what order you want though some story stuff might not exist yet.

a mix of a and b. BG2 had the perfect balance. Sandbox doesn't mix well with story driven, and all IE games were story driven. As P:E is a successor to IE, i don't think anyone should excpect a sandbox.

[AGX-17]

I don't find "blundering into Enclave Patrols" to be a "problem". They do exactly what the are supposed to do. 

 

And anyway, Fallout 1 and 2 are actually proper open-world role-playing games. Just old-school ones.

The game instructs you to go to a certain place rather than openly explore. The main quest leads you from specific town to specific town, it doesn't just let you loose to find you own way. It's clear from that they didn't intend for players to just head due south, especially not new players who don't know what's down there. Sure, you can use the old inch/save metagame method to get to Navarro, but that's a metagame strategy.

 

While it's good that Enclave Patrols are deadly, it's not good that the devs give you no warning or evidence that heading in that direction is suicide, in a game with no autosaves or checkpoints or the like. Neither game is advertised or classified as Roguelike, so only cautious players or metagamers would be able to recover from one of those encounters without successfully escaping, which is ignoring the high rate of encounters in that region. The fun of challenging areas far above your level in the increasingly rare world of non-level scaled areas/enemies is knowingly going into it, not blundering into an easily accessible location only to be instantly killed by something you had no awareness of.

 

Even a highly difficult game like Dark Souls gives you cues about what areas might be beyond your capabilities, and checkpoints/autosaves to mitigate blundering into enemies that will kill you with one hit. Skilled players can avoid death, and there are even some enemies they can defeat with poor equipment and low stats, but they're typically using metagame strategies to grab high-powered gear with relatively low attribute requirements ASAP, because you don't lose items when you die, just souls and humanity.

[Alexjh]

I would honestly like a sort of "star" format - a free roaming Athakala-esque central city with quests outside it being more linear or branching linear.  While people may hark praises of Baldur's Gate I honestly much prefer the Icewind Dale outside areas as it means things can be scripted to be a little more polished in terms of content.  Which isn't t say that if you want to get from the city to the Castle of Lord Plotpoint you have to go in linear procession one area to another with no choices, alternate routes are fine, but the point being I'd really like them to have nice clean progression in them so that the things you encounter on the way can be more clearly scripted and designed for interest rather than the BG1 method which had a lot of the generic country areas boiling down to being British Bulldog with weapons.

[Sedrefilos]

 

I'd love a sandbox, but I don't think they have the team quantity and funds to do it... There's so many more variables to track in a go-anywhere-anytime world.

Sandbox and IE-style don't mix. A sandbox game (à la Minecraft, a pure sandbox, or GTA, a mostly sandbox,) is more about dicking around and making your own fun, not story, companions and combat depth.

Well, check out Fallout New Vegas then. Sandbox with story, companions, characters and freedom in roleplay to make your story.

 

There were isometric sandbox games too like Divine Divinity and Sacred.

 

Sandbox games aren't inferior to IE games and could have all the great elements to be true rpgs if the developers want that.

 

But, other than that, I don't believe we'll have a sandbox game here and, to be honest, I don't care either 'cause this style of games can still deliver a great experience and is the way, Obsidian stated from the strart, that they'll follow.

[Jobby]

Divine Divinity was superb but with the hand rendered high res backgrounds that's extremely unlikely, personally I would like to see either the BG1 system with wilderness tiles you had to pass through which you could explore or not, or the Arcanum system where the entire world was seamless but it was a waste of time traveling it without the map unless you were looking for herbs, another cool aspect of the Arcanum system was that you could discover places either by wandering randomly or getting rumours/quests from npcs.

 

Having said all that i think it's more likely we'll get the BG2 system, which is still fine by me.

[rjshae]

Wandering randomly probably works better at lower levels because the opponents at that difficulty rating are more common. Higher level opponents are scarce and you have to travel to where they are located, resulting in a more linear experience. I suppose a game could switch between low level and high level groups of PCs to mix up the experience a little more; maybe send lower level lackeys on missions that you can control. Or they could split up the party and provide handicaps for the higher level characters.

[Jobby]

Wandering randomly probably works better at lower levels because the opponents at that difficulty rating are more common. Higher level opponents are scarce and you have to travel to where they are located, resulting in a more linear experience.

 

This doesn't need to be the case does it? If monsters in the game are treated like animals in real life with ideal habitats etc you may find certain ecosystems support bigger nastier monsters, for no other reason than it suits them, they may be scarce in the plains but common in the swamps, hence a weaker lvl char would stay to the road and the plains avoiding forests, swamps, oasis's, snowy peaks, caves etc... where nasty things might lurk.

 

Point is I don't think bigger monsters need to be scarce, they just need to be located in areas that make sense and are avoidable for lower lvl chars, not saying they can't go there but they'll get pwned if they do.