Please say that you dont try to model a whole city.

mcmanusaur · April 30, 2013

Who are you people who would rather be confined to specific non-contiguous zones for the sake of "realistic scale" rather than be able to explore freely and get some idea that there is stuff in the background, even if the presentation can't be completely realistic?

What is wrong with you? I'm serious... "Please, artificially restrict me!" "Yes, all this slightly imperfect background stuff breaks my immersion!"

Really, you'd rather have to imagine a whole society in the background but never see anything of it, than get some glimpse of the inner workings of a society even if it can't be on a realistic scale? This is honestly the most disappointed I've ever been in RPG players...

Skyrim was completely lacking in several ways, but its combination of free-roaming and immersive sense of scale was groundbreaking in my humble opinion. And yet you people would rather be confined to exploring certain predetermined points of interest on the world map, because that's more immersive? Are you serious?

I don't even. You've just completely lost the plot. If that's you, just find a different genre of game to play. Like some linear action-adventure game.

I pity the poor souls (i.e. developers) that have to cater to your senseless whims...

Edited April 30, 2013 by mcmanusaur

Kjaamor · April 30, 2013

Ah...

Um...

...you know what, nevermind.

mcmanusaur · April 30, 2013

Seriously, tell me a game that does it better than seeing the Solitude arch or the Throat of the World towering in the distance and being able to walk right up to it without a loading screen. Optical illusions and societal sustainability aside, that's what immersive sense of scale is all about.

Lephys · April 30, 2013

You do have to give Skyrim credit for their external world, even if some of the cities still felt a little strangely small (such as Whiterun, in which it seemed only 20 people lived). The world actually felt like a world, and it felt pretty huge.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Lephys

Lejontass · April 30, 2013

Seriously, tell me a game that does it better than seeing the Solitude arch or the Throat of the World towering in the distance and being able to walk right up to it without a loading screen. Optical illusions and societal sustainability aside, that's what immersive sense of scale is all about.

Not to be that way - and I might be alone on this - but I'd barely call Skyrim an role-playing game. It has some of the things that define an rpg for me but is severely lacking when it comes to aspects that is important such as a immersive and deep world that changes based on the events that take place in the world, advanced and well thought out quests, dialogue that matters and interesting characters - which skyrim has none. For me it's more of an exploration-experience and this is something that skyrim does well, the elder scrolls world feels small in oblivion and skyrim because the maps in them are just too damn small. If I play a game that tries to mimic an entire continent I don't want that area to be as big as my hometown. The world in skyrim - for me - feels small. It has visually stunning places ofcourse but that is not what makes an rpg. Those places could be found in any game where you might explore.

I suppose it all comes down to how you are experiencing role-playing games, what makes the world feel real for you. I'd say that Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 does a hell of a lot better job at immersing me into the world than Skyrim. Those games restrained where you had to go and what part of the world you could explore and the world never felt any less huge because of that.

amarok · May 1, 2013

Its ok to see things different. But stop your polemic ****.

I clearly can see the advantage of a seamless world, like Skyrim.

But i also look at these two "major cities" and just cant accept the right one to actually be a city. Whats so wrong with that?

Malekith · May 1, 2013

Good thing we didn't fund a sandbox TES type game but an IE game.

And no, Skyrim is not an RPG. TES games stoped being RPGs since Morrowind, and GOOD RPGs since Daggerfall.

Skyrim is an action adventure game through and through. Same as everything else from Bethesda the last years. Not that action adventure games are bad, but when we talk about RPGs Skyrim is the perfect example for how NOT to design one.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Malekith

Randomthom · May 1, 2013

I have to agree with the OP here, "large" cities in games aren't large enough when made in their entirety. If they were large enough they'd be full of a whole lot of nothing that would be rather unnecessary.

The game I can think of that has best managed to recreate a whole city is GTA IV but even that comes with some caveats;

It still wasn't bigger than a large town really.

Very few buildings could be entered.

That was the entire game world, the devs didn't have to design any other areas.

Most of the city's population was procedurally generated by quasi-random scripts, suitable for GTA but not so much for a true RPG.

The game I can think of that had the worst city recreation is probably Dragon Age 2 but maybe that's more to do with other game elements.

Once again, I find myself saying that I think Baldur's Gate 2 got it spot on. The city was big but only because you were consciously aware that you were only visiting small parts of it. Imagine if you hadn't had the map that showed you how the districts were spread out, if it was just a lazy dialogue when you clicked on the area transition that gave you option;

1. Go to Docks district

2. Go to Government district

3. Go to...

I think the city would have felt a lot smaller had this been the case, this was saved essentially by good artwork being integrated into the travel interface & ambient sound effects (excellent soundscapes in BG2 made such a huge difference to the atmosphere of an area).

What this approach does is give you the FEEL of being in a large city without having to make the whole thing, boring quiet back-streets & all. When people talk about 'gameplay', 'drama', 'realism' etc. they're essentially talking about perceptions & feelings.

Logically Athkatla in BG2 was actually only 7 areas & a few small ambush areas, each only maybe 200-300m across

I'd be perfectly happy if any cities in the game were represented thus.

mcmanusaur · May 1, 2013

Skyrim is bad because it doesn't have large cities? (No, Skyrim is bad because it has "streamlined" mechanics.) What's the problem with that? Aren't you assuming the cities are supposed to be large, which is the reason it allegedly kills your immersion? What's wrong with a game that only has small towns? You'd really rather have a game that has a "large city" that is divided up into zones? The way I see it, the problem here is your assumptions and not the game. You're missing the point and that's why I'm speaking in "polemic ****".

Edited May 1, 2013 by mcmanusaur

mcmanusaur · May 1, 2013

First, Skyrim isn't a continent, it's a region. The whole continent is called something else, I forget what. So again we have the gamer's assumption destroying his own immersion, not the game itself. And everything you mention is merely aspects of narrative, which both action/adventure games and RPGs have, as well as most other games. So while good narrative makes a game good, it doesn't define its genre. In my humble opinion, the things that define an RPG are options, choice, and lack of linearity. After all, an action/adventure game is just an RPG where there's only one role you can choose from. And I fail to see how Skyrim has less of that than IE games. IE games are good, don't get me wrong, but they're not necessarily any more an RPG than modern "RPG's" are. Unless you want to give me examples of what IE games have in a role-playing sense that modern RPG's don't. I enjoy the retro feel of the IE games, which is why I'm here, but it's silly to pretend they do realism and immersion things better than other RPG's without justification.

Edited May 1, 2013 by mcmanusaur

mcmanusaur · May 1, 2013

If people here want something because other games did it, they're entitled to that. But to act like that thing is objectively more realistic or immersive entitles others to respond to those claims. I agree that Skyrim and other recent TES games are lacking in certain aspects of being an RPG. But in the same vein, so are IE games; it seems to just be seen as more okay with IE games because they're old. But seriously, tell me why IE games are better role-playing games than modern RPG's if you have reasons. Not why they are better games in general, but what makes them more a role-playing game? For me as I've said in the above posts the only thing that defines this is options and choice of roles, in additional to free-roaming and non-linear narrative, in my humble opinion. And it seems the point of this thread is to argue against having one or more of those in IE, in some way or another, whether the argument is presented as a realism concern or otherwise. And that's fine, because as I said people are entitled to that, but I just don't think it makes an objectively better RPG.

mcmanusaur · May 1, 2013

You're very right that people present their subjective perceptions and feelings as "gameplay, feel, realism, immersion" etc. For me, and I think many other people, a small town that can be explored without artificial restrictions is more immersive than a "large city" split up into zones that allow you to explore 10% of it. No RPG that I can think of has made a fully explorable large city (thus the OP is a giant straw man argument), but some games have opted to scale down the town rather than artificially restrict players. And there's nothing inherently less realistic about smaller towns as compared to bigger towns. So personally I don't understand how having a map of a town that shows you're only exploring a fraction of it could possibly add to someone's immersion, and it's not the case for me. IMO, arbitrary and artificial borders is what kills immersion, not small scale. But anyway, we know we'll have partitioned off zones in Project Eternity because that's how the IE games are. For me that's not at all a problem because I don't play IE games for immersion, but I'll just let the rest of you convince yourself that it's more immersive I suppose.

Malekith · May 1, 2013

Game world that reacts to your actions? Bethesda's worlds are ridiculously static, with the player existing outside the world. Nothing you can do is recognised by the game. Kill the emperor? it doesn't affect the rebelion against him etc.

But that is besides the point. It matters not if Skyrim is an RPG or not. What matters is that whatever it is is completely diferent than PS:T, IWD and BG. And we paid for an IE game. You can like Skyrim. I loath it. The point is that the only common P:E backers have is that they love IE games. So the devs will use IE games as their model. If they deside to put a seamless continous world, you (and others) may like it, but at leeast half the backers will hate it. For example, in my opinion the whole free-roaming sandbox hiking simulator trend is the worse thing that happend in gaming.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Malekith

amarok · May 1, 2013

You dont get it :/

Some 10 to 20 huts with a few not-moving people standing around and without any involving, dynamic quests can neither be a big city nor a small one. Not even a very, very, very small one. I cant get over the fact, and i think thats a totally understandable thing to criticize on games like Skyrim.

The size is not a bad thing just because its small, its bad because it should not be small. A place which is called "major city" and is supposed to be the center of a kingdom or something like that, than this place has to be big to some extend. If its supposed to be a tiny remote mountain village than its perfectly ok.

But places like Riften, Whitehall or the Imperial City (Oblivion) are not supposed to be tiny remote villages. Yet they are. Thats the point..

Edited May 1, 2013 by amarok

Malekith · May 1, 2013

In that you are right. There is no such thing as objectively more immersive. Games are about suspension of disbelief. What someone founds immersive is strictly personal. I for examle cannot be immersed in first person or OTS games, whereas i have no problem with top down isometric view. The same about graphics. The more photo realistic games become, the less immersed i become because they send me straight in the uncanny valley. And i become way more immersed in books than movies.

Someone else can have completely opposite criteria.

As for the IE games, except Torment, no they are not a paragon of roleplaying much more than modern games. Fallout 1+2,Arcanum,and Planescape:Torment are better role-playing games than modenr ones, and i hope that P:E follows PS:T in that aspect.

mcmanusaur · May 1, 2013

Who says they're supposed to be anything more than what they are? Feudalism is fractal in nature, large cities exist at the center of large areas, and the scale decreases as you progressively look at smaller and smaller areas. The problem is the assumption that these towns are supposed to be something more than they are, not the fact that you can explore them completely, which is by most people's standards a good thing, I believe (though most people evidently aren't into a game like PE). It's a fantasy game, and if you can't accommodate a decrease in scale in your suspension of disbelief then I'm surprised you can accommodate many other more glaring discrepancies, such as... oh right, the fact that you can't actually explore 90% of some cities because of artificial restrictions, for example.

Edited May 1, 2013 by mcmanusaur

mcmanusaur · May 1, 2013

Well, it's beside the point, but on the whole, Skyrim was on the fence for me. The world was extremely well done in my opinion, but otherwise it was disappointing. I did wish the world was more interactive, with the arbitrary restriction of having only one purchasable property in each town being among the worst aspects of the game in that respect. But the world does react to your completing the Imperials vs. Stormcloaks quests so far as I can tell, and I've not seen any IE game that has a more interactive world (if I remember correctly, more interactivity than old IE games was one of the things a lot of people were requesting during the kickstarter campaign). For me this is just another aspect of an RPG that neither IE games nor modern RPGs do better in an objective sense. I don't expect PE to have a "seamless" world, I'm simply voicing my opinion that theoretically it should be more immersive and conducive to role-playing than one full of artificial restrictions, which is counter to the OP's argument (though as we can see what breaks his immersion is his own assumptions more than the lack of restrictions).

Edited May 1, 2013 by mcmanusaur

amarok · May 1, 2013

One last attempt.

medium sized mediaval city in real world:

This place actually is quite a bit bigger in the real world than it is on this miniature painting. I live in this place and the old mediaval city core still is intact. Half of the whole skyrim world, including every skyrim city, would fit into this single medieval city. Its just a whole other dimension of size, even if its a fairly small place compared to modern cities.

But we should stop that now, we wont be able to agree upon this thing.

mcmanusaur · May 1, 2013

Yes... and that's true for the playable space of pretty much any world that's been designed in an RPG, including IE games. I still maintain there's nothing inherently less realistic about a smaller scale if one takes it at face value, and I fail to see how having a bunch of unplayable space can possibly add to one's immersion. You haven't really addressed these questions, but we can agree to disagree.

Edited May 1, 2013 by mcmanusaur

Malekith · May 1, 2013

Realism is way overrated in games. If someone makes a game with a realistic city, with thousands of NPCs and thousand houses, most of them non importand and most NPCs bland and not part of quests, it will be realistic and very immersive. But also very boring.

BG2 approach is the best of both worlds. It provides a way to suspent your disbelief having the rest of the city in backround, and doesn't waste your time by allowing you to visit only the importand parts of the city.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Malekith

mcmanusaur · May 1, 2013

"Boring", "important", and "waste of time" are just subjective opinions, I will simply point out. Whether the NPCs are part of quests or not is another issue, but their actual IG existence doesn't suddenly make a game boring in any logical way. No one is arguing that PE or any game should have pointless and empty areas, so that is a straw man argument; rather people such as myself feel that there's a lot of potential content that gets left out when you explore 10% of a city. In a true role-playing mentality we'd only stand to gain from a more fleshed out city, but if we're talking about players with low attention spans who are obsessed with combat and want their character to be at the center of some supernatural spectacle, that's another thing entirely. The latter to me is more of an action/adventure mindset than a role-playing mindset in my humble opinion. But that's the route that most IE games and most modern "RPG's" take, and I expect PE to do the same. The sad fact is that RPG's aren't actually RPGs because the playerbase wants what I've mentioned above more than a world actually conducive to authentically role-playing. I simply ask you to consider whether what you're truly after is a role-playing game or action and adventure. It certainly seems to me that most of the people in this thread are more concerned with the latter than the former. Again, that's fine because we all know what we're going to get with PE to some extent, but let's not put it under the guise of a "more immersive" or otherwise better "RPG".

Edited May 1, 2013 by mcmanusaur

amarok · May 1, 2013

Yeah, thats my whole point.
And Athkatla did this really well, because on one side it felt like a huge, sprawling city and on the other hand i never had an urge to visit a place which didnt exist in it, although it only had seven rather small accessable districts. I seriously hope to see something similar in PE.

A higher degree of exploration though could easily be implemented into this system. Just increase the number of accessable districts, dont show the location of the accessable areas from start on and add between the major, quest relevant ones some smaller, rather hidden districts which dont necessarily have to be visited for the completion of major quests and only can be found if, for example, the big temple district is left through a small sideway instead of the big main road.

mcmanusaur · May 1, 2013

It felt like a huge sprawling city because of one image on a map, and the fact that you were artificially restricted to rather small areas didn't impact that feel at all? Well, alright. I've got nothing. This is of course the default for PE since it's based on IE games, but still... well, agree to disagree I suppose.

amarok · May 1, 2013

Mh, did you ever have the urge to visit a place in Athkatla which wasnt accessable?

Thats a real question by the way. I did not, but i assume others could have had a problem with the design of the city.

Mr. Magniloquent · May 1, 2013

I personally feel that the city of Baldur's Gate from the original game is probably one of the best virtual cities ever made. The layout and continuity not only of the surface, but of it's sewers underneath give it a genuine feel. Nearly every building has something worthwhile in it, and many quests which incorporate different parts of the city. I'll never forget when I was randomly burglarizing homes, and came across another troupe doing just that! The city was large, but could still be navigated very efficiently. Last but not least, the city was aesthetically wonderful. It was a bit more sterile and lacking in some of the character as say...Athkatla, but it was still a beautiful city.

Please say that you dont try to model a *whole* city.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Please say that you dont try to model a whole city.