Quest & Area Design/Layout - BG1 style vs BG2 / IWD style

[Sensuki]

Baldur's Gate 1 areas were mostly non-linear open areas that you could wander about in and approach locations from any direction. There was very little in the way of railroading or linear areas except sometimes along the main quest path.

 

There are many good examples but the best example is probably The Bandit Camp. This was one of the best quests in the game and hopefully resembles somewhat the amount of options that you have approaching quests in Project Eternity.

 

 

Firstly there were many different ways that the PC could discover the location of / gain entrance into the Bandit camp

 

*BG1 spoilers*

 

 

A letter obtained from Mulahey spoke of a Mage called Tranzig in Beregost, Tranzig could reveal the location of the camp (by threatening him or finding the scroll on his dead body).

 

A bunch of bandits in the Wilderness area between the Friendly Arm and Beregost can reveal the location (I think you have to surrender).

 

Teven in Larswood can take you there (as a recruit I think)

 

Raiken in the Peldvale can take you there.

 

If you were taken to the Bandit camp as a recruit you have to fight Tazok, and once you knock him down enough hit points he lets you live and you're free to explore (you can actually kill Tazok here with a nice exploit which I thought was awesome).

 

You can sneak through without fighting anyone and steal the documents in the chest in Tazok's tent, or you can kill everyone and fight the main battle inside the tent.

 

 

On top of that there were multiple ways to approach the bandit camp. It was an open area, if you didn't get taken there by one of the Bandits you could approach from the West or South and come across the camp in any way you pleased.

 

Most of the BG1 areas were like this, the main location was in the center of the area map and you could approach from any direction.

 

In Baldur's Gate 2 (and expansions), areas became more linear. Important locations were usually placed on the edge of the map and were usually only accessible by following one path. Areas existed solely for quest purposes.

 

Icewind Dale was relatively the same, most areas were pretty linear. Lower Dorn's Deep however was a nice exception, well done (Josh I think) for designing that.

 

In Project Eternity I am hoping that the area design goes back to being a little bit more like Baldur's Gate 1 and Lower Dorn's Deep in IWD. For external areas, hopefully there are multiple paths to reach a location.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Sensuki

[Malekith]

Don't have a problem with either. My problem is with BG areas that were mostly empty. I don't want something similar in PE.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think doing more content-rich versions of BG areas would be optimal.

[Sacred_Path]

balance > freedom of choice

 

I would be perfectly fine with area layouts à la IWD. However, IIRC a stealthy approach should be possible in a lot of situations; that pretty much demands at least two routes most of the time.

[rjshae]

I think doing more content-rich versions of BG areas would be optimal.

 

In order to foster a sense of exploration, you can't have an encounter around every corner. I think you still need to leave a good chunk of an outdoor map free of threat in order to cultivate a sense of drama. Otherwise it just degenerates into an action game.

[Jerky33]

 

I think doing more content-rich versions of BG areas would be optimal.

 

In order to foster a sense of exploration, you can't have an encounter around every corner. I think you still need to leave a good chunk of an outdoor map free of threat in order to cultivate a sense of drama. Otherwise it just degenerates into an action game.

 

I agree with this.  You can't just have areas packed with stuff, it's just too much.  Encounters should be interesting and fun to discover, if areas were packed, it would just get tiresome to explore through everything in every area.

[Gfted1]

Since its pointless to kill stuff I think I would prefer a tighter path that just gets me to my objective. Multiple paths / open spaces are fun when you have the possibility to discover an out-of-the-way encounter or there's something to gain in discovery. In PE it would be wandering for the sake of wandering and slowly getting ground down by encounters that gain nothing.

[Jerky33]

Yeah, this is a big reason why I don't like the idea of no experience for killing enemies.  It really discourages exploring every inch of a map for encounters.

[Lephys]

Yup, because what's there to do in an RPG if you can't run about collecting experience, like coins in Mario or Rings in Sonic The Hedgehog? *sigh*. Guess we'll just have to play an empty game.

 

There'll be no reason to talk to people, because you won't be able to kill them for XP. And there'll be no reason to discover anything, because you won't be able to use it to kill people for XP. And there'll be no reason to kill people in situations that can only be resolved by killing people to get XP, because we won't actually be getting the XP for killing the people, but instead indirectly through the actual accomplishment of something that the killing happened to facilitate.

 

Drat... *kicks a pebble*

[AGX-17]

Yup, because what's there to do in an RPG if you can't run about collecting experience, like coins in Mario or Rings in Sonic The Hedgehog? *sigh*. Guess we'll just have to play an empty game.

 

There'll be no reason to talk to people, because you won't be able to kill them for XP. And there'll be no reason to discover anything, because you won't be able to use it to kill people for XP. And there'll be no reason to kill people in situations that can only be resolved by killing people to get XP, because we won't actually be getting the XP for killing the people, but instead indirectly through the actual accomplishment of something that the killing happened to facilitate.

 

Drat... *kicks a pebble*

The issue is more that combat is where all the risk is, but the traditional reward (experience,) has been removed from the equation, and loot from general combat in these sorts of games tends to be underwhelming junk that you just sell for paltry sums when you get back to town. It's also queer from an immersive character growth standpoint, as fighters become better fighters through fighting, not through delivering packages or reporting success or failure to questgivers.

 

There's no way to make a judgement in either direction at this point, but the combat encounters are going to need to be carefully crafted lest fighting fatigue sets in due to excess battle without reward. Even a fun combat system stops being fun if you're subjected to it for a long enough duration. That's one of the best game design choices Naughty Dog made with The Last of Us: after every tense combat/survival situation, you get a respite period in which character development takes place as you safely explore, loot, solve basic geographic puzzles and enjoy the scenery on your way to the next tense encounter.

Edited June 21, 2013 by AGX-17

[Sensuki]

Since its pointless to kill stuff I think I would prefer a tighter path that just gets me to my objective. Multiple paths / open spaces are fun when you have the possibility to discover an out-of-the-way encounter or there's something to gain in discovery. In PE it would be wandering for the sake of wandering and slowly getting ground down by encounters that gain nothing.

Not necessarily. It has been mentioned that there will be Exploration XP rewards, and off the beaten path side encounters whether standalone or tied to something will probably have a quest/XP value tied to them if theyre not a trash mob.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Sensuki

[JFSOCC]

Yeah, this is a big reason why I don't like the idea of no experience for killing enemies.  It really discourages exploring every inch of a map for encounters.

so you'llfind other content, or approaching a place from a different direction gives you a tactical advantage. there are plenty of other ways to encourage exploration.

[Jerky33]

I'm not sure I understand the motivation for removing experience for killing enemies.  Is it just because of the grinding aspect to over-level?  Because that's a choice that every player can make for themselves.  If you don't want to grind to become too powerful for the content, then you don't have to do that.  I only did it once in Baldur's Gate 1 out of all my playthroughs, and I wouldn't do it again. 

 

And AGX's explanation of a fighter increasing his skill is something else that I have been thinking about.  People on here talk about preventing PE from being "gamey", but having experience for only questing is probably more gamey than the other option.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Jerky33

[Gfted1]

I don't see how people can honestly be worried about "over-leveling". Now I will admit to not finishing IWD2 or PST, but I never once encountered respawning enemies in any other IE game. That means that there is a finite amount of mooks and a finite amount of experience to be gained, game wide. The developers of course know what these numbers are and easily adjust the game accordingly.

[Lephys]

The issue is more that combat is where all the risk is, but the traditional reward (experience,) has been removed from the equation, and loot from general combat in these sorts of games tends to be underwhelming junk that you just sell for paltry sums when you get back to town.

You mean in-development cRPGs made directly by a development studio purely through Kickstarter funding and bypassing a publisher all-together, with the goal of capturing the quality of olden, not-thusly-made games while refining out the impurities? Yes, those games have set many a precedent thus far...

 

Just sarcasm with humorous intent, for extra emphasis, there. I actually greatly appreciate your second paragraph, which addresses this, exactly. I merely wanted to express my support of the "time will tell" sentiment. *thumbs up*

 

People on here talk about preventing PE from being "gamey", but having experience for only questing is probably more gamey than the other option.

Every time I read the whole "only for question" argument, I have to giggle a bit.

 

A) The entire game is going to be built around the very idea of no-XP-just-for-killing, so thinking "Oh noes! Imagine all those enemies from that other game that wasn't designed with this in mind, and now imagine all those enemies just not giving me XP anymore!" is highly inaccurate, any way you look at it.

 

B) Even those games, and even the most generic of quests within them, didn't, in any shape or fashion, completely separate combat encounters and quests. So, I fail to see how simply not having a game with a bunch of things arbitrarily roaming around for you to kill for pretty much no reason other than that you want to gain some XP, automatically means that overcoming ANY combat challenge is somehow rendered completely and utterly pointless.

 

Did I miss some update for P:E in which they announced the story/quest system will be specifically devoid of any and all combat? o_o *blink blink*...

Edited June 24, 2013 by Lephys

[Jerky33]

The point I was specifically referring to was the fact that people become better at what they do by actually doing that thing, not doing something else.  A fighter will still get experience and become a better fighter for doing a quest that has no combat, and will not receive any experience for actually fighting.

[Malekith]

The point I was specifically referring to was the fact that people become better at what they do by actually doing that thing, not doing something else.  A fighter will still get experience and become a better fighter for doing a quest that has no combat, and will not receive any experience for actually fighting.

How is that any worse than being able to become better at diplomasy or picking locks by cleaving goblins?

Combat XP has also the same problem.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I think doing more content-rich versions of BG areas would be optimal.

 

 

In order to foster a sense of exploration, you can't have an encounter around every corner. I think you still need to leave a good chunk of an outdoor map free of threat in order to cultivate a sense of drama. Otherwise it just degenerates into an action game.

True, but I don't think that "more-content rich than BG" needs to be taken so far where you have encounters around every corner.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

On XP: Would all of you be fine with awarding XP for dealing with random encounters, but have it tied to overcoming them so no matter how you dealt with them you would still get rewarded with XP?

[Jerky33]

 

The point I was specifically referring to was the fact that people become better at what they do by actually doing that thing, not doing something else.  A fighter will still get experience and become a better fighter for doing a quest that has no combat, and will not receive any experience for actually fighting.

How is that any worse than being able to become better at diplomasy or picking locks by cleaving goblins?

Combat XP has also the same problem.

 

I agree with you.  I think that the Elder Scrolls does a decent job of increasing skills by performing said skills rather than arbitrary experience levels.  This is a very high level issue with computer RPGs, and obviously the ES system is not going to be used here.  It just feels to me that reducing the potential sources of experience can potentially hamper motivation, but it's all about the execution.  If they do it well, I don't think anyone will notice/care.

[Malekith]

 

 

The point I was specifically referring to was the fact that people become better at what they do by actually doing that thing, not doing something else.  A fighter will still get experience and become a better fighter for doing a quest that has no combat, and will not receive any experience for actually fighting.

How is that any worse than being able to become better at diplomasy or picking locks by cleaving goblins?

Combat XP has also the same problem.

 

I agree with you.  I think that the Elder Scrolls does a decent job of increasing skills by performing said skills rather than arbitrary experience levels.  This is a very high level issue with computer RPGs, and obviously the ES system is not going to be used here.  It just feels to me that reducing the potential sources of experience can potentially hamper motivation, but it's all about the execution.  If they do it well, I don't think anyone will notice/care.

 

I find TES system terrible, even if it's realistic. Skill by use systems are broken. Throwing fireballs for houra at a tree to better your spell casting is terrible gameplay, even if in reality(as it is in Tamriel) is someone throws fireballs for hours at an end he would become better at it. Better gameplay>realism.

Thats why i approve the quest only XP. XP is an abstraction by it's nature. That way you can be focused on the narrative's objectives and cut out the "grinding just to become stronger filler" If i'm in a hurry and meet some random orks in the wild, if i don't want to waste my time i can avoid them or come to an agreement with them without be punished by losing XP.

I lose the loot of course but that is acceptable as it makes sense

[Jerky33]

You are pro-quest exp, and I'm pro-enemy exp and the game will have only quest experience so that's that.  Like I said, if it's done well, I probably won't notice or care. 

 

Regardless of whether or not enemies give experience, I would prefer to have areas be more like Baldur's Gate 1.  More nonlinear, more open, more realistic in terms of encounter density (which is to say, not very dense).  I would also prefer if areas didn't unlock only if you had quests associated with them like Baldur's Gate 2 did.  I liked what I saw in those screenshots from Rezzed, so it looks like they're on the right path.

[Malekith]

You are pro-quest exp, and I'm pro-enemy exp and the game will have only quest experience so that's that.  Like I said, if it's done well, I probably won't notice or care. 

 

Regardless of whether or not enemies give experience, I would prefer to have areas be more like Baldur's Gate 1.  More nonlinear, more open, more realistic in terms of encounter density (which is to say, not very dense).  I would also prefer if areas didn't unlock only if you had quests associated with them like Baldur's Gate 2 did.  I liked what I saw in those screenshots from Rezzed, so it looks like they're on the right path.

I would prefer BG2 density, BG1 empty maps were very boring.

But i definitely would prefer  areas that don't unlock only if you have quests associated with them.

[Lephys]

The point I was specifically referring to was the fact that people become better at what they do by actually doing that thing, not doing something else.  A fighter will still get experience and become a better fighter for doing a quest that has no combat, and will not receive any experience for actually fighting.

You know for a fact that this is the case in P:E? Because, you know they've already mentioned, in vague detail, a separation between combat and non-combat abilities/skills, right?

 

Also, for what it's worth, the whole "you leveled up!"/experience system is designed to abstract a LOT of things. Namely, when you gain a level, and "learn a new ability," it's supposed to represent the fact that you've put your fighting experience to good use and have, in your free time (the abstracted part, since no one wants to play a character's 3 hours of combat practice every single day, real-time, to perfect a new maneuver), developed at least fundamental mastery of a new ability/technique.

 

It's basically saying "by the time you've fought this many times and traveled for this long, you'd probably have mastered a new ability and/or improved your overall capabilities by this much." If you check a system of abstraction against reality, it's ALWAYS going to fail. It's moot.

 

I find TES system terrible, even if it's realistic. Skill by use systems are broken. Throwing fireballs for houra at a tree to better your spell casting is terrible gameplay, even if in reality(as it is in Tamriel) is someone throws fireballs for hours at an end he would become better at it. Better gameplay>realism.

Thats why i approve the quest only XP. XP is an abstraction by it's nature. That way you can be focused on the narrative's objectives and cut out the "grinding just to become stronger filler" If i'm in a hurry and meet some random orks in the wild, if i don't want to waste my time i can avoid them or come to an agreement with them without be punished by losing XP.

I lose the loot of course but that is acceptable as it makes sense

As for the first part, I think one of the main flaws in it (and similar systems) is the lack of a cap. Basically, it's true that you'd get better with a sword the more you use it. However, swinging a sword 7,000 times at a tree stump is only going to make you SO much better with a sword. Just like solving a linear equation 7,000 times is only going to make me so much better at math, or baking a pie 7,000 times is only going to make me so much better at baking a pie. I'm not going to suddenly know how to make gourmet souffles just because I baked a pie enough times.

 

Basically, they've abstracted the real-time process of improving skills/abilities into numbers-per-use, but they FAIL to abstract in the fact that there's a limit to how much you can improve something in a given amount of time. This is difficult to implement, in a game, since you have things like "well, I can just rest at an inn, thereby lifting my daily cap, and doing it again, 8D!" This is why tying progression to levels is so heavily used. You can limit XP gain via design, in how many instances of XP gain you provide, and their quantities of provided XP, etc. As long as the game doesn't have infinite XP generation (in the form of respawning combat encounters, repeatable quests, etc.), you're literally restricting the pace of character progression. And this isn't a bad thing, I don't think.

 

What might be interesting is a system in which certain general things are tied to simple level-ups (ehh... minor HP/stamina gain? Or regen, at least? I'm not really sure what all would be here, off the top of my head). Then, in each encounter/quest, have a limited XP award, just as usual. Only, have the game keep track of what skills were used to complete objectives. If a combat encounter granted XP, for example, and your Wizard used nothing but destruction spells, then he would gain 100% of the combat XP towards his destruction skill. If he swung a sword at something once, and spent the rest of the time casting destruction spells, then he could gain like 95% of it toward Destruction, and 5% toward Swordsmanship. etc.

 

Obviously, that would be quite complex, and would need a lot of figuring out and tweaking, but I think it would be interesting to see such a system tested in action. And, obviously, the entire game would have to be designed around this, rather than just tossing it into the existing formula.

[curryinahurry]

On XP: Would all of you be fine with awarding XP for dealing with random encounters, but have it tied to overcoming them so no matter how you dealt with them you would still get rewarded with XP?

 

This is the path I assume Obsidian is taking.  It certainly makes the most sense and likely, it wouldn't be hard to implement a mechanism that treats random encounters as quest-type events.  

 

With regards to the OP; was there a statement made about the size of area maps at any time?  I've been hoping for a system of overland exploration similar to SOZ, but I would like the area maps to be at least the size of the one presented at Rezzed.    It begs the question, how many area map sizes will P:E as that will dictate how encounters and potential further exploration of areas might happen.