Is it possible to have a open world and a good story?

[Alastre]

As pointed out before, RDR has a pretty much linear story, just like for example AC. Witcher 3 offers small or big decisions in every single quest. The problem with open world is not storytelling in general but immserive choice and consequence.

So while RDR is a good example for immersive world design it cannot really be used to answer the question if open world and storytelling in an RPG (with decisions and choice&consequence on various levels) can work together well...

Not so sure. Remember that RDR was an original story not based on any existing characters. This means that there's no point to have so many choices to do about the main story. The story is linear because it's just like a movie. Good guy (John Marston) Bad guys (FBI), you get close and involved to Good Guys stories and relatives, Bad Guys try to use and kill Good Guy, you get angry about that and look for Revenge. That's the plot and that's how it has to be, With Geralt it's different. It's based on a famous and quite big saga (6 books), fullfilled with sooooo many characters. Everyone of them with his story, his pecularity etc. So it make a sense to have so many deep chooses to do. Spare or not a king, save that witch, support that revolt etc. Because Geralt world is soooooo huge and complicated. You know (if you are a fan of course) who Foltest is, what Heneslt done etc. So you have the chance to let them pay for something they have done in the books and you didn't like...it's not "real" Geralt, it's you playing Geralt and you are free to take your choice..Think about what you'd do to Leo Bonart if he was still alive...after all the pain and sufference and humiliation he inflicted to Ciri...personally I'd kill and disembowel him in 1000000 pieces...becasue I KNOW WHO IS HE...FBI Guy? Don't know anything about him...he's just the evil one and it's enough to know for the story. There's no point to have those kind of choices with those FBI guys or Dutch Van Der Linde...they just evil characters of the story. That's all. "Born" just for that use, be a bad guy and get klilled at the end, when the good win. And apart from all this, I think there will be no trouble for CDPR to merge an open world game with a deep and branched story as TW3!

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Not so sure. Remember that RDR was an original story not based on any existing characters. This means that there's no point to have so many choices to do about the main story. The story is linear because it's just like a movie. Good guy (John Marston) Bad guys (FBI), you get close and involved to Good Guys stories and relatives, Bad Guys try to use and kill Good Guy, you get angry about that and look for Revenge. That's the plot and that's how it has to be, With Geralt it's different. It's based on a famous and quite big saga (6 books), fullfilled with sooooo many characters. Everyone of them with his story, his pecularity etc. So it make a sense to have so many deep chooses to do. Spare or not a king, save that witch, support that revolt etc. Because Geralt world is soooooo huge and complicated. You know (if you are a fan of course) who Foltest is, what Heneslt done etc. So you have the chance to let them pay for something they have done in the books and you didn't like...it's not "real" Geralt, it's you playing Geralt and you are free to take your choice..Think about what you'd do to Leo Bonart if he was still alive...after all the pain and sufference and humiliation he inflicted to Ciri...personally I'd kill and disembowel him in 1000000 pieces...becasue I KNOW WHO IS HE...FBI Guy? Don't know anything about him...he's just the evil one and it's enough to know for the story. There's no point to have those kind of choices with those FBI guys or Dutch Van Der Linde...they just evil characters of the story. That's all. "Born" just for that use, be a bad guy and get klilled at the end, when the good win. And apart from all this, I think there will be no trouble for CDPR to merge an open world game with a deep and branched story as TW3!

I'm still not sure if I get your point. You admit yourself that storytelling is completely different in RDR. So why still defending the lacking basis for a comparison?

 

[Alastre]

I'm still not sure if I get your point. You admit yourself that storytelling is completely different in RDR. So why still defending the lacking basis for a comparison?

If your point is that never since know an open world game has ever had such a deep storyline and so many possibilities of "how the story evolve due to your decisions" right i agree with you and I can understand your worries. But what i mean is that I can't see how an open world game couldn't match with a deep storyline such TW3....let's make an example...you did\din't something wrong at Skellige...you may get be "banned" from the Isle and never have the chance to go back in that place..well simply it will be precluded to you the place on the map and the relatives quests...so you won't be albe to do something further in the story...how all this will affect the main story? I have no idea but im pretty sure CDPR will know how to merge all this.

 

[wazaa]

So what you're saying is... TW3 Open World will be a limiting experience because you found content in a different game, made by a different developer to be unsubstantial?

I think your problem is that you seemed to have already convinced yourself TW3 will just be another generic fantasy RPG crafted solely for the purpose of taking advantage of enamored gamers. It's not.

Comparing The Witcher to games like Assassin's Creed/Far Cry is like comparing a cheeseburger you made yourself to fast food.

you understood nothing, of my comment. Please read it again and think a little of the meaning of my words, instead of searching some kind of troll, from them

 

[SofaJockey]

Is it possible to have an open world and a good story? Yes it is.
There is always a balance to be struck between the size and openness of the world and the resources put behind story content that is large and small.

Based on playing: Elder Scrolls III, IV, V, Fallout 3 & NV, Red Dead Redemption, Dragon Age Inquisition, TW2 and the Assassin's Creed series:

Different game series tackle it in different ways, Assassin's Creed probably had the most 'filler' in the form of chests and collectibles. Skyrim had plenty of 'filler' as did DAI, but that makes none of these games bad games, it's just a style of game structure to make the world feel active.

DAI was the most enjoyable game of 2014 for me, I sunk hundreds of hours in and will likely a few more before TW3 breaks.

The key is that any small quest (and both Skyrim and DAI had bear killing quests) need a purpose and a pay-off for completing the quest, not just 'read letter in location A, take ingredient B to location C and get some XP'.

With such a pay off, even a small quest can be enjoyable.

We will see in a few weeks won't, we. TW3 looks good but the time to count the chicken is when it is hatched.

 

[Juuuhan]

Making a large open world with a good story is actually retardedly easy. The issue is rather that most game developer doesn't understand how to design it and therefore they make a "Save the world" story which is locked in time and space and throwing millions of tokens to the player for side quests.

Superbunnyhop addressed this quite well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wujJnlsJh4 where he highlighted that rather in Morrowind the main story was more focused on achieving certain levels (therefore doing side missions make sense to reach these levels) and NPC even highlighted to the player that he should probably take a break from all this important stuff (essentially NPC giving the player a break from work to rest up) to instead focus on exploring the world.

Unfortunately this method is still quite rare and we are instead giving what essentially boils down to a theme park with a rather superficial main story quest that doesn't impact or advance until players happens to be in the line.

There's two easy methods/mechanics though to fix this... There's probably more but this is all I can think of at the moment.... Here goes:

1. Make a main story that isn't based on time (that is, pressing issues that logically have to be done right away). This means that you can implemented things from side quests such as rewards, items, levels, NPC favour etc. to make the actual main story easier. Essentially this method is fixed and fine in almost any game that doesn't try to pull "A evil is awoken, fight it!" because you can justify everything you've done on side quests as actually important (indirectly) for the main story and it doesn't seem out of place or stupid.

2. Intergrate side quests to the main story. This is essentially what I feel CD RED have done with Witcher 3. You are doing "important" side quests which will change and form how the main story plays out. This is of course more time consuming and have to play out way more scenarios though this will further stress the importance with side quests.

Personally I think that CD RED might have focused a little bit too much on point 2 and not point 1 in all games. You are always in a hurry because the main story is so damn important and I honestly think that it's a bit of a shame seeing how colourful and vast the world in the Witcher universe is to always force player in this "save things/persons close to you hurry!" I wish this will be wrapped up fast and that CD RED rather would focus on creating a interesting story regarding Geralt finding out things and interacting with the Wild Hunt, seeing as this is not something that you would necessary claim that has to be done in an instant and actually allows the player to feel like exploring the world (for clues if you want one reason for example).

Summary, Make a game where side quests are something Geralt would do, not just the player.

 

[SofaJockey]

... Summary, Make a game where side quests are something Geralt would do, not just the player.

This is exactly the truth of it, well identified.
Using the same analysis for other games:

• ACU: Arno helps people to assassinate thugs, not collect floating hats or steal from chests.
• Tomb Raider: Find relics sure, but not go mushroom picking.
• Dragon Age: Help people in trouble but why go bear hunting on a whim?
• Watch Dogs: Deal with crime by apprehending thieves, then don't steal money yourself.

A more open world may be populated by plenty of stuff.
If that stuff is relevant to the protagonist, however minor, it has meaning.
If it goes against the protagonist's mission, is pointless kleptomania or is collecting things for the sake of it, that's less good.

 

[Aes Sídhe]

I think time pressure could be a great method for pushing people through a narrative. I get it that there a people who approach "an open world game" (/sigh) as a one life do everything deal, but not me, my experience of a few really good OW games benefited from multiple playthroughs with soft-rp'd uber-restricted characters with whole sections of the game unexplored. Not saying TW3 is going to be like that, but TW2 was a little.

Making a large open world with a good story is - probably really - easy.

Altered that a little, because I bet you're generally right, on condition you've actually done something similar before, since first time at anything unfamiliar can be daunting. Difference between the REDs and the rest right there.

 

[fchopin]

The only way to know op is to play the game.

 

[randallflagg8]

Do you prefer The Witcher 3's new open world, or the story driven TW of old? Hot or not Polls. Results in comments

Hey all,

I created a bunch of polls around TW3 that I thought would be fun and will post the results below.

Moderator: Link deleted, cannot confirm it is safe.

Are you concerned horse combat is OP in The Witcher 3?
Did you play TW1 & TW2?
Did you read the books before playing The Witcher games?
Do you prefer a linear world in TW1 & TW2 or an open world like TW3?
Will you play The Witcher 3/ Wild Hunt
Should Geralt be forced to meet level requirements to use certain swords?
Should TW3 be dark and gritty or high-fantasy and colorful?
Will you play on PC or Console?

Moderator: Link deleted, cannot confirm it is safe.

---------- Updated at 03:05 PM ----------

21 Prefer an Open World / 9 Story Driven
19 Prefer Dark and Gritty / 7 Prefer High Fantasy and Color
14 are for level requirements for swords / 14 are against

 

[lord_blex]

why does open world and story driven have to be mutually exclusive? I understand that it's harder to create a focused coherent story in an open world game, but still, the witcher 3 very much aims to be story driven.

 

[JacobWitcher]

Open world story driven like The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt.

 

[randallflagg8]

Yeah you're absolutely right. I think what's impactful is on the spectrum between story driven <> open world, it looks like there is a major shift. I'm a huge fan of MMO's like Diablo so I'm excited about it, but I dont know if everyone else is.

 

[thislsmadness]

CDPR's goal with The Witcher 3 is to bring the two together. So..

 

[Ljesnjanin]

I do not know...Ask me when I finish Witcher 3...

 

[Jimbob_2.1]

CDPR Red claims it'll have both. We'll have to wait and see, no way you can say for sure from what we've seen. IMO it'll come down to the player if the story has suffered or not., depends on their play style I think. I don't think It'll be like most other open world rpg's though, even the side quests should tell a story of their own.

Also, About those questions. a lot of them can't be answers with the choices you provide. Dark and Gritty or colorful? I want dark moments and beautiful scenery. Open world or Story driven? I want both.

I think you should also think about the console question. Most people here play on pc so maybe change it to pc or console, seeing as their both pretty much the same (xbone and ps4 that is)

Edit: nevermind that last bit

 

[BlackWolf500.298]

Theoretically CDPRs plan as of now is to merge both.
So the only way to have an answer to that poll is really to play the game first.....

 

[moonknightgog]

The real definition of the first 2 The Witcher is not "story driven", but "linear HUB patterns". It's completely different from "open world games" because it is based on different design rules.
I don't know what I prefer. If TW3 will turns out with an awesom quest design and a Gohic-like structure, I will say "The Witcher 3".

 

[topeira]

i like open world over any linear way of doing games.

in fact even TW3, with its none-scaling enemies is more linear than what i had hoped since it might have the world set in such a way that you will need to explore it in a certain order, according to the levels of each zone, but im not sure about that.

I just love open world games, even if there are some sacrifices.

if i wanted 100% story driven anything than i'd go watch a TV show. as long as i am playing a game - i want to have control over it.

 

[gogmeister777]

I don't see why story driven/open world should be mutually exclusive.

Besides, with the main story being a 50 hour game (25 speed run) it already is as story driven as the previous games, at least when you consider the length, if you get what I mean. Also, how many other games give you 50 hours of story driven missions? DA III was a long game but the actual main missions were short. They padded the game out by locking those behind 'power point' walls.

I would consider an open world game to not be story driven if it has really short story missions because you're expected to spend the vast majority of your time wandering about simply looking for loot and leveling up.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more the meaning behind the term 'story driven' becomes hard to pin down. Some examples of what the survey creator means by that would be helpful.