Mefris;n9949631 said:At least you avoided the vampires.
Mefris;n9949631 said:Pillars of Eternity has a section exactly like what you're describing in the White March Part 2 and I loved it to bits.If more games did things like this I would be very happy.
Mefris;n9949701 said:I'm curious how someone would justify picking between the two methods of portrayal based solely on those two screenshots.What are you implying Liz?
Suhiira;n9949901 said:the smaller the partitions the more each can contain. There is a limit to how much RAM and video texture what memory can contain. While wonders can be done with stuff loading on the fly even then there's a limit before you start stuttering and such
Mefris;n9949701 said:I'm curious how someone would justify picking between the two methods of portrayal based solely on those two screenshots.What are you implying Liz?
Suhiira;n9949901 said:Simple, the smaller the partitions the more each can contain. There is a limit to how much RAM and video texture what memory can contain. While wonders can be done with stuff loading on the fly even then there's a limit before you start stuttering and such (Sakrim, Fallout 4).
That and it's an unfair comparison because they're not even remotely in the same space when it comes to graphic style.Zelda has a very stylized,cel-shaded (and somewhat minimilistic) aesthetic while The Witcher goes for realism and more detail.A fairer comparison would be with a game like Just Cause 3,unhidered by hardware and stylistically similar.Lisbeth_Salander;n9949971 said:It's unfair of me to compare Breath of The Wild with Witcher 3, since Breath of The Wild has kind of bad graphics because of the Nintendo Switch limitations and not because it is a "single open world
Both Skyrim and Fallout have way smaller worlds and are tens of times more partitioned and less open than the Witcher but still run like crap.The reason why Bethesda's games run poorly is because they are unoptimized buggy messes that are based on an arhaic engine,not because they're more open world and require more resources.They wouldn't use so much resources if Beth took the time to develope them properly and/or make a proper engine.Suhiira;n9949901 said:Simple, the smaller the partitions the more each can contain. There is a limit to how much RAM and video texture what memory can contain. While wonders can be done with stuff loading on the fly even then there's a limit before you start stuttering and such (Sakrim, Fallout 4).
SigilFey;n9949521 said:-snip-
Lisbeth_Salander;n9949971 said:It's unfair of me to compare Breath of The Wild with Witcher 3, since Breath of The Wild has kind of bad graphics because of the Nintendo Switch limitations and not because it is a "single open world" game, but I posted the picture anyway to illustrate what this fella said:
Nintendo Switch sucks by the way, but Breath of The Wild is a great game.
EDIT: The price of the Nintendo Switch in my country is around 650 dollars. Considering that I can buy PS4, a XBOX ONE or even build a monster PCby that price, why should I instead buy the Switch, Nintendo? There is no reason to buy it.
Snowflakez;n9951011 said:If a Switch in your country costs 650 dollars, then that's certainly unfortuante, and there is no real reason to buy it over a PC or another console - but you realize for many of us the Switch doesn't cost 650 dollars? I mean, that's a ridiculous price. I got mine for the base price a day after launch (woke up early to stand in line, but still). If you're basing your opinion of the Switch solely on something like the price being out of whack in your specific country, that seems odd to me. But to each their own.
Not sure I agree with your premise. Freedom is not the point of all cRPGs. It certainly is for sandbox cRPGs. Narrative based RPGs however are more linear in design and are not primarily about freedom, but rather the story. Also dungeon crawlers are arguably cRPGs still where all of the choices and consequences are made through the design of the character and the combat consequences thereof. Each is a different style of cRPG ... and the sandbox style is the only one that gives primacy to freedom. Trying to make a game both 100% narrative and 100% freedom is IMO how Mass Effect: Andromeda ended up being less impactful than the more focused narrative games Bioware did in the past.Snowflakez;n9951011 said:I also don't think combat should be 1/3 of the game. I think combat should be 3/3 of the game if the player wants, or 3/3 plot-focused quests if they want, and 3/3 quiet exploration if they want. That is the point here. Freedom. In an open world RPG (emphasis on the "role playing" part), the player should be able to take on any role they want. What if they don't want to solve situations through dialogue or exploration? What if they only want to explore, and not fight?
Snowflakez;n9951011 said:Here's the thing - I loved Skyrim's gameplay, and its dungeons, and its cities, and its bandit camps. The world was super condensed, yes, but because of current tech-to-cost ratios in the gaming industry, I have to ask myself if it would have even been possible for them to reasonable have everything you guys are asking for... there are sacrifices that would have to be made in other aspects of the game to accomplish such a lofty goal...
Snowflakez;n9951011 said:I also don't think combat should be 1/3 of the game. I think combat should be 3/3 of the game if the player wants, or 3/3 plot-focused quests if they want, and 3/3 quiet exploration if they want. That is the point here. Freedom. In an open world RPG (emphasis on the "role playing" part), the player should be able to take on any role they want. What if they don't want to solve situations through dialogue or exploration? What if they only want to explore, and not fight?
I'm playing devil's advocate there, though. I understand your point, I'm exaggerating to make one of my own. Personally, I'd be absolutely fine with a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 split like that. But I'm trying to think about the people who wouldn't be, especially after experiencing what Skyrim has already offered them...The best approach would be to try to offer multiple ways through each situation...
Lisbeth_Salander;n9951721 said:Base price which in us is around 300 dollars right now is still ridiculous. Come on, add another 100 and you can buy a PS4.
SigilFey;n9952141 said:Ha-ha-ha... You're right. I wasn't very clear with the "1/3" example. Of course, the player should be able to go looking for trouble and find it -- every time -- if they wish. What I meant was, the game should leave me options to get around it; not keep cramming combat down my throat.
Lisbeth_Salander;n9951721 said:Base price which in us is around 300 dollars right now is still ridiculous. Come on, add another 100 and you can buy a PS4.
Rawls;n9951861 said:-snip-
Snowflakez;n9952231 said:...but don't you think Bethesda would have done that by now if there wasn't some limiting factor in place (time or budget constraints) preventing them from doing so? You don't think Bethesda would love to brag about their "massive open world filled with stuff to do" and actually mean it for once? ...I'm sure they'd love to give all of their animals realistic AI (though mods have fixed the wolf problem) and have lots of fun, believable stuff for the player to stumble upon, like the things you suggest. But all of that takes time and money. Time and money that must now be diverted from other aspects of the game, for better or for worse.
Snowflakez;n9952231 said:Could you clarify what you mean by "reworking the world" to fit this sort of thing? For instance, assuming Skyrim was achieved with the maximum budget Bethesda could possibly allot, what would you have them spend less time on to divert towards the world stuff?
In other words, in Skyrim's current state, what would we not have if it was instead developed the way you suggest? This is not a leading question, I'm genuinely curious.
SigilFey;n9955441 said:I will admit that it's a marriage of business-meets-quality that has worked for a long while, but I think TES:O and FO4 were a bit of a wake-up call that this "quick and simple" methodology is getting a little long-in-the-tooth, and overall player expectations have changed. (Although, I will say now, just like with FO4, if the next big release uses any variation of Gamebryo / Creation Engine, I will not purchase it until most of the wrinkles are ironed out. Read: The Unofficial Patch starts reporting that the major issues are resolved.)
SigilFey;n9955441 said:And the only reason I don't target something like TW3, Dragon Age, or GTA is because the differences would actually be more subtle between this idea and the way those titles already work.
"The City of Whiterun" would be a single, enormous map. Say, 3-5 square miles on a side. The city itself occupies the center, and is about 1 square mile. (The rest of the world is unloaded from RAM. All those resources that are being used to keep track of what's going on in Solitude and Windhelm are no longer needed, and can be devoted to Whiterun City itself.) We now have an Assassin's creed style of city. Whiterun is hundreds of buildings...thousands of NPCs wandering around. All the named NPCs are still about, but the rest are "extras" that create a sense of scale and bustle. They can still be interactive, they simply won't be plot-critical.
Now, all that open space / filler housing... We utilize the wonders of procedural generation. (Keeping in mind that "procedural" does not mean "random".) I simply utilize a procedural process to generate a realistic landscape using a specific algorithm, then go through and touch some areas up to make them special (add some rare plants and reagents to specific, logical places, ensure wildlife is distributed realistically, create a few vampire lairs or bandit hidey-holes). These elements would also be somewhat exclusive -- a landscape with a selection of flora and fauna that cannot be found anywhere else in the game. "Random" house interiors can be be built from a selection of templates, and then similar algorithms can populate them with furniture and clutter according to settings (how wealthy the district is, what race / faction the owner is, etc.) Again, I swoop through and add some unique touches, and of course, unique shops, taverns, palaces, landmarks etc. can still be uniquely hand-crafted. Once I'm happy with the results, I save the area, and all of the data will be permanent. (I use some randomization to create it, but the final result is persistent.)
Players can now seamlessly explore the whole area. Squeeze through crowds of people in the market. Dragonsreach castle would literally sit at the peak of a gigantic hill, overlooking a sprawling capital city. The area around it would be plains. Vast, open distances to explore. 1:1 scale for that focused area. Aside from that, it's regular Bethesda gameplay. If I want to travel away, I either rent a cart / fast-travel, or I ride along the miles of road to an edge of the map, and my character "rides off into the distance" (similar to Assassin's Creed again).
Overland travel would work similar to the old Fallout 1 and 2 games. Some, cool, interactive map that compresses the passage of time as I travel, and I may discover "points of interest" along the way. And it would now take realistic amounts of game time to travel. So a journey from Whiterun to Solitude would take a month-and-a-half, not 9 hours at a jog. Seasons could come back! For example, say, 4 days out from Riverwood, I stumble on Bleak Falls Barrow. A new, 1:1 scale map will load. A true mountain, with twisting and winding trails. If I don't have directions, I'll need to pick my way up. I might have to deal with a few bandits hiding out in an old abandoned watchtower...and i would look down at the tiny cluster of lights that represented 50 or so buildings comprising Riverwood, the size of a postage stamp, far below. 15 or 20 minutes later, little less than halfway up this mountainside, I come upon a ledge nearly 500 yards across. Built into the towering cliffs is a sweeping awning, carved from the living rock. And just barely noticeable behind one of the enormous pillars is the glow of a campfire.
And so forth. So individual areas with plenty of unique wilderness to explore that creates a more epic scale and sense of place. I can easily "fast-travel" between any discovered areas, and I can choose whether I wish to arrive in-town or on the edge of a map. I also think it's needed to begin representing battles in a...not silly...way. Since the game only has that, particular area loaded (and given the wonders of 64-bit processing), we can now reasonably calculate thousands of soldiers fighting on the field, or through the twisting streets of a city, while hundreds of civilians run for shelter or form bucket chains to put out fires.
What we lose is a seamless world. I also don't think it's reasonable to think that "clutter" could be done with the same care (ecxept for hand-crafted areas). NPCs would not all be unique personalities, but it wouldn't stop unique NPCs from existing. There would be more load times, but considering Beth games load every time you transition between interior cells, I don't think people would really notice or care, as long as individual areas were expansive enough.
So, a few additional load times, some relatively faceless NPCs, and fewer cabbages on each shelf in the average kitchen. In exchange, we get sprawling, bustling cities, harbors with fleets of ships docked at a time, miles of true wilderness to explore, a real sense of scale and distance, possibly seasonal changes, and battles involving hundreds or perhaps thousands of units. It would also help to improve the economy of the game. As certain resources could now only be obtained in exclusive areas, it wouldn't be hard to create a more organic "market" in the game with believably fluctuating prices.
Also, just because my mind is now on it, the major difference between this and the way, say, Dragon Age: Inquisition works right now would be the feeling of each area. DA:I still uses a strong level of compression in each of its overland areas. While the variety is wonderful, there's still no one spot that ever feels like it's out in the wilds. You're always two football fields away from the nearest camp / village / cottage / castle in every map. I'd like a 4 square mile area of forest that appears on my map not because there's a cave leading to the God of the Werehamsters...but because it's a really great spot to hunt deer. That's it. Prime hunting spot. But I'll still need to spend 10 minutes of real time actually hunting before I find one. So, it's an approach that's mostly focused on creating a feeling of place. A subtle but impactful change, I think.
Snowflakez;n9955631 said:Just one concern - would NPCs themselves be persistent, too, or randomly generated every time you enter the city?
Rawls;n9951861 said:Freedom is not the point of all cRPGs. It certainly is for sandbox cRPGs. Narrative based RPGs however are more linear in design and are not primarily about freedom, but rather the story. Also dungeon crawlers are arguably cRPGs still where all of the choices and consequences are made through the design of the character and the combat consequences thereof. Each is a different style of cRPG ... and the sandbox style is the only one that gives primacy to freedom.
Snowflakez;n9952231 said:We are talking about Skyrim, not narrative-driven RPGs. It would be quite ridiculous for anyone to expect CDPR to have Skyrim levels of freedom on top of excellent story and RPG mechanics.
SigilFey;n9955441 said:1.) They decided to milk the Gamebryo / Creation Engine for all it's worth, and / or the original programmers (besides Howard) are long gone and they don't want to risk digging into the nitty-gritty code and trying to fix things at this point, potentially destroying what is (more or less) working.
2.) The company's leadership has a particular vision on what the games should be, and they, perhaps unintentionally, funnel every single development process down the same path every time. Habits.
"The City of Whiterun" would be a single, enormous map. Say, 3-5 square miles on a side. The city itself occupies the center, and is about 1 square mile. (The rest of the world is unloaded from RAM. All those resources that are being used to keep track of what's going on in Solitude and Windhelm are no longer needed, and can be devoted to Whiterun City itself.)
Snowflakez;n9955631 said:Just one concern - would NPCs themselves be persistent, too, or randomly generated every time you enter the city? I don't care about them not having personality, but it would be jarring to find a house full of valuables, run out of space, nip down a nearby alley to stash them in a barrel and come back only to find the house now belongs to someone else.
sv3672;n9956361 said:Random non-interactable civilians on the streets do not really need to be persistent, they can even be deleted (forgotten altogether) once they are outside a certain radius and no longer visible, while new random NPCs pop in to keep the total number constant at something like 50-100. This can be explained with them coming from or going into the numerous buildings the player cannot enter. But there is not a lot of information that needs to be stored about a single NPC if they are essentially walking props, so the memory and save file size cost of remembering even a few thousand can be made reasonably low. It is more a matter of CPU usage to manage them efficiently and only actually simulate (with AI, physics and animations) a small number around the player's location. Or it can be done in a mixed way, pedestrians are not persistent, but NPCs inside buildings are remembered.
Snowflakez;n9956501 said:Well, in this case, you'd probably be able to "interact" with them in that you press E on them and they give some random line of dialogue.
Snowflakez;n9952231 said:Hmm... I don't agree, but that's OK. To be clear, I'm not a Nintendo fanboy. The Switch is the only platform of theirs I've purchased in the past decade or so, aside from a used 3DS some time ago.
I think a new console at $300 is perfectly fair, being that -- as you said -- other new consoles cost $400. I think the $100 cheaper price point about makes up for the hardware decrease.
Of course the game selection is limited right now, the system hasn't been out for years and years like the PS4 and Xbox One have. But Nintendo is throwing up a lot of excellent originals and ports, and they'll only continue to do so in the future. They are embracing third-party developers more than ever before, now, too.
That said, nobody should be buying a Switch as just a "gaming console". If you just want a game to play the latest major AAA titles on, skip the Switch, naturally. But that's not why most people buy the Switch - they buy it because they want Nintendo's games, most of which are really, really damn good lately. Third party developers finally getting on board is a pleasant side effect.
Give the Switch the same chance everyone has given the PS4 and Xbox One. You can still hate it, but I for one am going to withhold judgement until its had some real time to breathe and mature.
Mefris;n9950891 said:That and it's an unfair comparison because they're not even remotely in the same space when it comes to graphic style.Zelda has a very stylized,cel-shaded (and somewhat minimilistic) aesthetic while The Witcher goes for realism and more detail.A fairer comparison would be with a game like Just Cause 3,unhidered by hardware and stylistically similar.
Lisbeth_Salander;n9959591 said:Maybe Switch worths 300 dollars, since the majority of the industry doens't make games with quality like Nintendo does.
Funny thing is that I consider Breath of the Wild superior to Witcher 3 because of its combat and world interactions.