Novigrad

+
Thank you for exemplifying what I meant with far greater eloquence. That is exactly what I meant.

You've articulated your points well enough that repeating them in other words was simple. And that's what I like about these forums: sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't, sometimes it's more complex, as it is in this discussion; but at least we get to talk about it and not just scream about it like prepubescent sorceresses.

Either way, I hope the game lives up to both our expectations :)
 
The landmark idea is a good one that I always use and following rivers is the survival trick I was always told on courses, but personally I like that being lost exploration feeling when you first emerge into a world that you know nothing about, so long as the world is interesting and lively enough. Emerging from the sewers of Vizima with one mark on a blanked out map, and the huge expanse of rooftops and bustle facing me, or first setting foot in the vast primeval forest around Flotsam, that was an experience in and of itself. I was lost and I looked forward to getting more lost, both in the world and the plot.
 
I, too, like to get lost when exploring, BUT only when exploring. If there is a place where I have to go back frequently while questing, or simply doing things like trading or crafting or similar activities, then overly complicated layout quickly becomes a pain, and since then I have to spend my time trying to find my way to wherever I need to go instead of playing the game, I get frustrated. I still have chills down my spine when I think about Little Lamplight in Fallout 3. Admittedly there weren't that many things to chase after, but there were some nevertheless. I wasted like several hours figuring out where I was and where might the one kid I needed to speak with be. No, thank you.

I also dislike the metro system in Fallout 3. Since various tunnels and stations are buried, and the locations themselves are repetitive and uninteresting to explore, it's a maze I could easily live without - but couldn't, since the tunnels were often the only way to get to various locations that are inaccessible from the surface.

These are examples where I don't find getting myself lost appealing: I need to do something, I need to get somewhere, and I'm wasting my time trying to figure out my way in an already explored location, or through an uninspiring maze of disconnected underground tunnels.

Now, having a wide open world before me, with all the unknowns just waiting to be explored - that I like, the sense of wonder, the curiosity. When I explore, I want to explore with the notion that I will find many interesting things, be it characters, creatures, items, or simply fascinating locations or breathtaking vistas. That's gameplay for me, that's what I seek in exploration. Moving through a buried metro tunnel that's just like dozen tunnels before is not remotely interesting, and that's not the kind of exploration I want.
 
Last edited:
Shit Dungeons are a blight plain and simple, and shame on any developer who uses them, especially when there's room for so much personality and interesting depth to be injected into them. Writings of antiquity on the walls, murals and strange artworks, the remains of previous delvers, empty secret corridors thick with the dust of centuries, hidden treasures, cunning riddles, tragic ghost stories, perilous sneaking through dangerous gauntlets, these and more are all viable methods of making an area interesting, but what do we usually get? Alternate combat and conversation (if lucky) where we slaughter our way to the final boss/treasure/conversation. Just shows how much games have degraded that anybody can be satisfied with this dull grind, and what a waste of a location this is.
 
Since the recent posts are about exploration I might add an insight or two. To this day I've never felt so free and...exposed as I did in Gothic 1 and 2. In a good way. Exploration in those vast worlds were intriguing and...perilous at the same time. The great atmosphere was always present and in the early hours of the game you just had to take care. Say when fleeing a pack of wolves you had to watch so you didn't run towards something more dangerous. Like a pack of snappers. Damn, but I ran a lot in those games, but I never stopped exploring the world or taking in the vistas. It was overwhelming and fun. And when you became good enough to actually challenge those dangers it felt so rewarding.

Whenever play an open world game, free from tutorials(good or bad) to do as I damn well please I take in the vistas, and slowly, methodically travel around the world.

I loved Witcher 2, but somehow Witcher 1 felt more open.

I just wish/hope/know that Witcher 3's open world won't feel...'cramped'...but the video that showed 'endless' fields and interesting places far away in the horizon gave me hope. Looking forward to get lost in that game, just like @darcler said. Even in Novigrad. All the different buildings, alleys, gardens, plazas. Can...can we have several market squares to peruse wares at? Please devs, make it so. :rolleyes:
 
Since the recent posts are about exploration I might add an insight or two. To this day I've never felt so free and...exposed as I did in Gothic 1 and 2. In a good way. Exploration in those vast worlds were intriguing and...perilous at the same time. The great atmosphere was always present and in the early hours of the game you just had to take care. Say when fleeing a pack of wolves you had to watch so you didn't run towards something more dangerous. Like a pack of snappers. Damn, but I ran a lot in those games, but I never stopped exploring the world or taking in the vistas. It was overwhelming and fun. And when you became good enough to actually challenge those dangers it felt so rewarding.

Whenever play an open world game, free from tutorials(good or bad) to do as I damn well please I take in the vistas, and slowly, methodically travel around the world.

I loved Witcher 2, but somehow Witcher 1 felt more open.

I just wish/hope/know that Witcher 3's open world won't feel...'cramped'...but the video that showed 'endless' fields and interesting places far away in the horizon gave me hope. Looking forward to get lost in that game, just like @darcler said. Even in Novigrad. All the different buildings, alleys, gardens, plazas. Can...can we have several market squares to peruse wares at? Please devs, make it so. :rolleyes:

I agree, the world in Gothic had a very real sense of danger that is not found in many games today. I do have to say that people overestimate the vastness of G1 and 2. The world in these games is far smaller than in TES. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage. On one hand the devs were able to handcraft and make each area unique and important but the overall content is less. TES worlds provide the sense of being in this huge world at the cost of complexity. It seems that TW3 is going to have both of these AND story, which makes me a bit skeptical. I have not seen a world the size of Skyim with the complexity of Gothic and the storytelling of the Witcher yet. I hope CDPR will prove me wrong but so far, due to the complete lack of info, I have no reason to believe they will succeed.
 
I agree, the world in Gothic had a very real sense of danger that is not found in many games today. I do have to say that people overestimate the vastness of G1 and 2. The world in these games is far smaller than in TES. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage. On one hand the devs were able to handcraft and make each area unique and important but the overall content is less. TES worlds provide the sense of being in this huge world at the cost of complexity. It seems that TW3 is going to have both of these AND story, which makes me a bit skeptical. I have not seen a world the size of Skyim with the complexity of Gothic and the storytelling of the Witcher yet. I hope CDPR will prove me wrong but so far, due to the complete lack of info, I have no reason to believe they will succeed.

World design between Gothic(2000) and TES Skyrim(2011) is a bit...well, unfair to compare, but I see what you mean. Though I'd rather compare Gothic with say, Morrowind from 2002. and guess what, 'tis was also on an island. ;) Well in Gothic we had that barrier, everything outside it didn't matter, but I was amazed to see how large Khorinis was in Gothic 2, and that the entire world of Gothic 1's Valley of Mines was incorporated!

What you're proposing though is the vastness of Skyrim without the expense of Gothic's complexity and storytelling of the Witcher. Whatever I'm playing, and if I feel something is missing, I make it meaningful. If that means pretending I didn't run into my 'dad' just now in Fallout 3 by accident and skipped several quests because of it, reload, and walk in the opposite direction of every waypoint until I actually want to complete the game, I'll do exactly that.

Regarding handcrafting and having a personal touch. Well, I've seen the vistas of the trailers...and I have faith in the devs. And I'm a pessimist usually, but I was so swept away with Witcher 1 and 2(and still play them even today) and I'm ready to be swept away once more with Witcher 3.:lol: They'll succeed. No pressure devs. ::)

No, but seriously, the lack of info is sad but it'll be worth the wait. Do like me, replay the games, read the books(well, the four I can read while supporting the author) and thank Sapkowski and the devs for the many hours of entertainment we have been given!
 
Last edited:
CDPR have never made an open world RPG on this scale so I have no reason to believe them on words alone. If this had been a semi-linear RPG like TW2 then absolutely but what they are attempting is not only new to them but also to the industry. New Vegas is not big enough to qualify.
 
I disagree; world size is almost entirely a creative and artistic issue. Worlds of great size and complexity haven't been a technical problem since, well, Daggerfall.

It's filling the world with interesting content, not merely machine-made space and repetition, that makes the world at all meaningful. It requires visual art, direction, and storytelling, and it requires a lot of these things.

In a city, such as Novigrad, there can be technical issues that arise due to the sheer amount of actors, actuators, and clutter in a single cell. But even these are small in comparison to making all of it meaningful and none of it excessive or repetitious.
 
Last edited:
I disagree; world size is almost entirely a creative and artistic issue. Worlds of great size and complexity haven't been a technical problem since, well, Daggerfall.

It's filling the world with interesting content, not merely machine-made space and repetition, that makes the world at all meaningful. It requires visual art, direction, and storytelling, and it requires a lot of these things.

In a city, such as Novigrad, there can be technical issues that arise due to the sheer amount of actors, actuators, and clutter in a single cell. But even these are small in comparison to making all of it meaningful and none of it excessive or repetitious.
This.

Skyrim's world isn't even remotely big compared to previous TES titles but (comparatively) much more denser. Daggerfall is like ~6 times the size Skyrim is but a lot of it is just empty.
 
This.

Skyrim's world isn't even remotely big compared to previous TES titles but (comparatively) much more denser. Daggerfall is like ~6 times the size Skyrim is but a lot of it is just empty.

It's still not as dense as I'd like it and the towns were a huge disappointment. The towns in Skyrim ain't got shit on TES4.
 
It's still not as dense as I'd like it and the towns were a huge disappointment. The towns in Skyrim ain't got shit on TES4.
Well don't mistake me for a skyrim lover, there is not a single thing in skyrim that I like over any of the previous TES titles. I'm just trying to make a different point.
 
What Guy said. The first Witcher gives me hope here, though open world is an enormous risk, when the world opens up to include most of Vizima and the Swamps we have a potentially huge area to explore. If they can replicate and build on that, and make it half as good then they'll have beaten most of the lifeless, empty worlds that have been created lately by much more experienced developers whose games are steadily degenerating.
 
w00t! Something I can actually contribute to!

Well, a little bit at least. I can't really say more than has already been said, though I may shed a bit of light on the overall philosophy behind our implementation. Since Quests (and all things Quest related) are a huge part of what makes the world...well, alive, it is our responsibility to make sure that players do not feel like the world is "boring".

First things first though. While, from a technical point of view, it is not difficult to make a world large, actually making a large LIVING world is quite a technical challenge. As mentioned earlier, the bigger you make the world, the more you have to fill it with content and more content means more stuff for the game to load/render/show. Our goal here is to make every part of the world interesting however, so this is the challenge our teams face. This is accomplished by a number of things on our end (Quest Design).

1) Quests/Encounters
Obvious one coming from me, eh? Of course, having things to do in places that provide background and story to an area and its inhabitants is a primary form of making areas interesting. I am, here, referring not necessarily to the main story parts of quests, but the smaller, side missions that fill the world with meaningful life. This includes simple things that might not be in the traditional definition of "quest". Encounters, in this case, provide meaningful background to the world and make it feel like yes...these people "live" here.

2) NPCs
NPCs or a broader term, population of places. This is all the people that inhabit a place, the people one would call the population of an area. Important for us here is to keep things dynamic. People don't just stand at the same spot day in and out, or carry out the same work all the time. They move, they react to outside influences (Geralt for example ;) ), and they are in different places at different times, doing different things. This is especially true for towns and, of course, cities such as Novigrad. Especially in Novigrad you don't want to feel like you ware walking through a) an empty city or b) walk around with everyone else just being stationary and static.

3) Monsters
Of course, a big part of the Witcher world. Can't really go into details about this except that there will be a lot and Geralt will have his fair share of Wicther-work. These of course help to set mood and keep the world alive as well. Both in terms of interaction with the other NPCs as well as providing work and lastly, in providing background and context for situations in certain places.

4) Locations/POIs
Points of interest and locations that tell stories by themselves. Ruins, abandoned buildings, particular land formations and more. Things that don't require NPC's to be there to explain it but by purely being there and maybe with some additional notes can breathe life into otherwise inanimate objects. Plus, great incentive to move about and explore, since undoubtedly you'll find something interesting, even if it is "just" a beautiful view or a long forgotten statue etc.

All of this is used to make sure that wherever you go in the world of Witcher 3, you feel like it is indeed, a living, breathing world. It's tough work, because none of the above mentioned things is automated. It is, indeed, all crafted by us to fit with the theme and mood of every location. Yes, even the "generic" NPCs standing around and filling Novigrad are placed bit by bit, given work, given schedules, given reactions and so on and so forth.

In the end, we want you to be able to fully immerse yourselves in this world. and to make sure that regardless of where you go in this world, it contributes to that immersion.

Just a little insight over lunch. Talk to you again later! :)
 
 
Top Bottom