Concerns about fast travel

[Agent_Blue]

It is, if the ambush is supposed to happen just after you leave the area but you decide to immediately fast travel to town, you'll skip the ambush.

Fast travel does encourage lazy quest design, because it lets the designers get away with a bunch of fetch quests instead of putting in proper content. Couriers in Skyrim basically told you the location of areas you could discover on your own - that's not a proper quest, that's just adding another location on the map.

Got your point. The problem is not upon arrival, but upon departure, an issue then common to all forms of instant fast-travel. I'll give it a thought.

Under the overarching design ideology, ideally, all systems should be in-game assets. As far as I can tell this is how we can ensure the good old basic game design principle is enforced: all benefits come at a cost and the greater the benefit the greater the cost.

Take navigation. The map should be an in-game object which you hold in your hands. But while you're looking at it you are rendered defenceless and exposed to potential attacks. The reward - orientation - puts you at risk. This is the same reason why inventory management, crafting and bomb or potion making should all happen in real-time, or, at the very least, in slow-motion.

Instant Fast Travel must come at a price as well, and a high cost for that matter since the player reaps tremendous rewards.

Now, the thing with portals and other similar systems is that, though an acceptable solution, their benefits don't reflect character progression. Both a novice and a high level character will essentially get the same out of them. I won't go over the sign proposal again (which could easily be formulated in a non lore defying format) but it attempts to address this issue.

 

[mxYELLOW]

Play Far Cry 3; open world, unlimited fast travel. There are still plenty of space to roam than what most people think.

 

[ReptilePZ]

The idea of other systems is that you only get to travel from, say, Town A to Town B but you can't travel from Town A to cave A or from said cave back to town. It's basically the same way The Witcher games have worked so far, except now you'll have the ability to not use fast travel to get from, for example, Flotsam to Vergen. And you get to explore an area that's about as big as those 2 areas befoe stumbling upon a place that you can fast travel drom and to. This is also why I don't think you need to limit that fast travel system depending on level or w/e - you just limit it to places the player's already been to.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

I think the overall plot of The Witcher 3 is going to benefit from more regulations. We're not talking about Skyrim here where story isn't the priority. In the Witcher 3, you'll be in the middle of a warzone - the roads aren't safe. Travelling all around the map isn't the best idea ever. Your goal is to move south to find Yen, not move a bit to the south, then go back north because you finally found granny's herbs, then go East to find her lost Journal as well. I imagine Geralt only sticking to an area for as long as there's something important he needs to deal with. Then he resumes his search for Yen.

Again, if you don't have fast travel in your game, you're going to think twice before sending your player running for a fetch quest to the other side of the map. Limited fast travel works better with the situation Geralt's in.

That I can get behind but again, if you don't have unlimited fast travel in the first place, if the game's designed properly then you wouldn't even need to use it.

You might not remember from Skyrim, but the player could never fast travel to a POI or to a location which he has never visited before. I imagine that most quest or story related stuff will initiate on the first visit, which the player will always have to do by conventional means of travel.

I agree with you that quests should not be made with fast travel in mind, but that doesn't mean that having fast travel will ruin quests.

It's really quite simple- makes areas unavailable for fast travel depending on story conditions (hostile environment, enemy's base, etc.), and whether or not the player has visited that location before.

But if the player is reasonably done with a certain area then they should not be prevented from fast traveling there for any reason.

And I do realize the potential fast travel has for messing with quests- it also happened in Skyrim where a quest would not initiate if you fast traveled to a certain location. Every game can have bugs, which may not be inherently related to a tool in question.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Play Far Cry 3; open world, unlimited fast travel. There are still plenty of space to roam than what most people think.

Exactly! Open world means just that- that you should be able to travel to the furthest peak or island in view without limitations. But the game should take into consideration that you don't always want to put in that effort.

 

[DragomirG]

So it is decided then...

 

[AhmadMetallic]

if you don't have fast travel in your game, you're going to think twice before sending your player running for a fetch quest to the other side of the map. Limited fast travel works better with the situation Geralt's in.

This is interesting. I've seen Skyrim players who said that they don't jump from one end to another to finish a quest they just got, they stack up the quests and finish them as they enter their designated areas, by traveling.
So, CDPR could easily have the reasoning that "Hey, just because you got a quest just now that requires you to travel to the other side of the map, doesn't MEAN you have to finish it right now. The game will have tens of quests with objectives all over the map, and you can finish the ones that are in your current area and as you travel you'll keep doing that."

I imagine that most quest or story related stuff will initiate on the first visit, which the player will always have to do by conventional means of travel.

Can you elaborate on that? It sounds awfully bad that you expect most quests to initiate upon the first visit, because that deems the POI useless after that quest is done, because it means that you cant have 10 quests for the same location!

 

[ReptilePZ]

You might not remember from Skyrim, but the player could never fast travel to a POI or to a location which he has never visited before. I imagine that most quest or story related stuff will initiate on the first visit, which the player will always have to do by conventional means of travel.

I agree with you that quests should not be made with fast travel in mind, but that doesn't mean that having fast travel will ruin quests.

It's really quite simple- makes areas unavailable for fast travel depending on story conditions (hostile environment, enemy's base, etc.), and whether or not the player has visited that location before.

But if the player is reasonably done with a certain area then they should not be prevented from fast traveling there for any reason.

And I do realize the potential fast travel has for messing with quests- it also happened in Skyrim where a quest would not initiate if you fast traveled to a certain location. Every game can have bugs, which may not be inherently related to a tool in question.

I think you misunderstood me or maybe I'm not geting what you mean. I'm not saying restrict the player from travelling to previous towns. What I'm saying is, restrict the player from travelling to places they haven't visited yet and also restrict the player from travelling from any place they want to. Allow them to take a carriage from Novigrad to a village that you've already been to, but not to a ruin that's already been discovered. Don't allow them to travel from a random dungeon in the middle of nowhere back to town.

 

[ReptilePZ]

This is interesting. I've seen Skyrim players who said that they don't jump from one end to another to finish a quest they just got, they stack up the quests and finish them as they enter their designated areas, by traveling.
So, CDPR could easily have the reasoning that "Hey, just because you got a quest just now that requires you to travel to the other side of the map, doesn't MEAN you have to finish it right now. The game will have tens of quests with objectives all over the map, and you can finish the ones that are in your current area and as you travel you'll keep doing that."

The point I'm making is not about the player restricting him/herself, it's about messing with the story. As I said, in the context of the game it doesn't make sense for Geralt to randomly be going back to places he's already been to just so that he can deliver an unimportant item or w/e. If you're not designing you game with a fast travel system that allows this then you're going to end up with quests that actually fit the plot and setting.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Exactly! Open world means just that- that you should be able to travel to the furthest peak or island in view without limitations. But the game should take into consideration that you don't always want to put in that effort.

Nobody's stopping you from doing that. Just don't have the ability to fast travel to the furthest peak or island. And if you do that, then make sure the story gets affected by Geralt wasting time on random exploration - the war's not going to wait for him to find the perfect view.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

What I'm saying is, restrict the player from travelling to places they haven't visited yet

We agree here.

and also restrict the player from travelling from any place they want to. Allow them to take a carriage from Novigrad to a village that you've already been to, but not to a ruin that's already been discovered. Don't allow them to travel from a random dungeon in the middle of nowhere back to town.

Why not, that's the whole point of having fast travel as a tool. Everyone should be allowed to role-play to the extent of their interests, and if someone doesn't see the merit in having to walk, swim or ride to a previously discovered ruin from a town or whatever, then what's the harm.

The problem with the witcher series is that they are not perfectly moddable, otherwise we wouldn't be stressing about all the game minutiae.

If CDPR could provide players with a mod kit like the Skyrim Creation Kit all our problems would be solved.

As I said, in the context of the game it doesn't make sense for Geralt to randomly be going back to places he's already been to just so that he can deliver an unimportant item or w/e. If you're not designing you game with a fast travel system that allows this then you're going to end up with quests that actually fit the plot and setting.

But don't you see how you're putting limitations on what the game can do for you because of travel issues? Sometimes it's enjoyable to make a 20 min horseback ride to a POI, and sometimes you just don't want to do that.

What's the point of having an open world if everything of interest is going to be modular, insulated or squished together.

And if you do that, then make sure the story gets affected by Geralt wasting time on random exploration - the war's not going to wait for him to find the perfect view.

That's purely up to the game developers to decide, and personally I would not mind if the world did wait. The world in W1 or W2 did not run on a clock, so why should that happen here?

But of course, some quests are timed, which is completely reasonable. I am saying give the player a chance to enjoy the game world, and don't make the overall experience rushed.

I just wan to add that I enjoy reading your posts, and that my tone is not confrontational. I have ran into problems where posters thought I was ranting when I was not.

Can you elaborate on that? It sounds awfully bad that you expect most quests to initiate upon the first visit, because that deems the POI useless after that quest is done, because it means that you cant have 10 quests for the same location!

I just meant that some events initiate upon first visit, like when we entered Flotsam.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Why not, that's the whole point of having fast travel as a tool. Everyone should be allowed to role-play to the extent of their interests, and if someone doesn't see the merit in having to walk, swim or ride to a previously discovered ruin from a town or whatever, then what's the harm.

You had to that in The Witcher 2 anyway, and it worke perfectly fine. Ideally, you wouldn't need to go back to a random location in the wildrness after you've done the quest there, if said quests are designed well and locations aren't reused.

The problem with the witcher series is that they are not perfectly moddable, otherwise we wouldn't be stressing about all the game minutiae.

If CDPR could provide players with a mod kit like the Skyrim Creation Kit all our problems would be solved.

That is true.

But don't you see how you're putting limitations on what the game can do for you because of travel issues? Sometimes it's enjoyable to make a 20 min horseback ride to a POI, and sometimes you just don't want to do that. What's the point of having an open world if everything of interest is going to be modular, insulated or squished together.

Going from one end of the world to the other is going to take 30-40 minutes. If the time you have to travel to your next location is 20 or so minutes, chances are you'll be able to go to a nearby town or village where you can use fast travel to get to the place you were headed for (So it would only take a fraction of the time you'd need to get there on horseback). I mean, I'm talking about areas similar in size to the ones n TW1 and TW2. I didn't feel like they needed a fast travel system.

That's purely up to the game developers to decide, and personally I would not mind if it did. The world in W1 or W2 did not run on a clock, so why should that happen here?

True, but TW1 and TW2 weren't open world. You couldn't travel to the highest peak for no reason so there didn't have to be penalty for doing so.

I just wan to add that I enjoy reading your posts, and that my tone is not confrontational. I have ran into problems where posters thought I was ranting when I was not.

That's fine, I didn't think you were ranting. And it's good to have a civilized discussion - both of us seem to really love the series and it's clear we want to ensure that the third installment is as best as it could possibly be. And the only way to find an optimal solution is through thoughtful debate that doesn't turn into a flame war.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Ideally, you wouldn't need to go back to a random location in the wildrness after you've done the quest there, if said quests are designed well and locations aren't reused.

I think that sort of limitation is unnecessary- the quest should be designed in whatever way makes sense.

For example, if W2 was open world and we needed a Rose of Remembrance for Saskia, then it shouldn't be a problem to fast travel to the Elven Baths if the player wants to do that. It wouldn't make sense to expect those roses to exist in Aedern simply because we need them to be there.

I mean, I'm talking about areas similar in size to the ones n TW1 and TW2. I didn't feel like they needed a fast travel system.

Ah, but you see this time around we are apparently going to get a world 20 times greater than Skyrim, so that means a lot more walking around, and a lot more times when we're exposed to danger. This world is going to be huge! And quite frankly, I am very excited about that.

That said, sometimes you just want to from A to B quickly, and without fighting unnecessarily, so fast travel helps in that case.

True, but TW1 and TW2 weren't open world. You couldn't travel to the highest peak for no reason so there didn't have to be penalty for doing so.

A penalty should only exist for missions or quests which are timed. Generally, however, it's ridiculous to offer players a beautiful and grandiose environment to explore, and then penalize them for doing so.

The fact that it's open world just means that you can move without limitation or hindrance, that there are no invisible barriers preventing your movement.

I think CDPR needs to be really careful about how they design quests and means of story progression in this world- the ultimate objective should be to allow players to get the most out the game as possible.

Perhaps it would make sense to make certain quests available only if prior conditions have been met, and if that requires the player going back and forth two locations then so be it. This is a caveat of open world games, and this is perfectly reasonable. We can't have our cake and eat it too.

Ultimately I want to play this game for fun, so I should be allowed to take the time to scale mountains and kill monster goats if I want to.

Also, I am playing Far Cry 3 right now, and if the W3 environment is anything like that I will be super stoked!

 

[Aaden]

For example, if W2 was open world and we needed a Rose of Remembrance for Saskia, then it shouldn't be a problem to fast travel to the Elven Baths if the player wants to do that. It wouldn't make sense to expect those roses to exist in Aedern simply because we need them to be there.

I disagree. In such a case, they'd better make the effort to design a bigger quest around the Rose of Remembrance, making clear it's something hard to come by, and designing it in a way that makes travelling to the Baths worthwhile.

Fast travelling there, picking it up (and maybe killing some thugs in the baths), fast travelling back, doesn't do the significance of what is asked of you justice. Imagine The Hobbit going something like "They left the Shire and arrived at the Lonely Mountain. [insert part actually on-site here, several dozen pages]. Then they travelled back to the Shire.". Sure, that example is exaggerated and due to a book being different media a bit farfetched, but it's exactly the kind of poor game design I and the OP (I think) are concerned about. If Geralt has to travel a long distance, it should be believable that he would actually do that - because unlike us fast travellers, the ingame character is actually on the road for multiple days and meanwhile probably experiences one adventure or another.

 

[AhmadMetallic]

because unlike us fast travellers, the ingame character is actually on the road for multiple days and meanwhile probably experiences one adventure or another.

Bingo! Adventures within adventures = Adventureception = Best open world RPG ever.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

designing it in a way that makes travelling to the Baths worthwhile.

That can still be done regardless of the game containing fast travel as a tool. I don't know, but perhaps they can indicate some scenario that makes it impossible to fast travel to that location for the moment. This is a quest specific scenario however, and I chose a bad example (the rose for saskia, I mean) for what I wanted to illustrate.

I was trying to illustrate a situation in which it doesn't make sense for something to exist in your environs simply because you need it to be there- everything should be at its place, with respect to the story and lore.

And of course everyone realizes that fast travel is a tool provided solely for the convenience of the player, because c'mon sometimes a person just doesn't want to make a distance by foot or horse, and carriages are not ubiquitously available.

So, if the player just wants to putz very quickly from one place to another it should be an option, granted that the player has discovered said place before, and also that it is not unavailable to travel to for any quest or story related reason. Generally, the player should be able to fast travel from one point of the game world to any other, and at any time.

 

[ReptilePZ]

I think that sort of limitation is unnecessary- the quest should be designed in whatever way makes sense.

For example, if W2 was open world and we needed a Rose of Remembrance for Saskia, then it shouldn't be a problem to fast travel to the Elven Baths if the player wants to do that. It wouldn't make sense to expect those roses to exist in Aedern simply because we need them to be there.

Well, this is where punishment based on leaving the questing area comes into play - the fog spreads while you travel back and you end up failing the quest/ the quest now changes to something that has a worse/different outcome.

Ah, but you see this time around we are apparently going to get a world 20 times greater than Skyrim, so that means a lot more walking around, and a lot more times when we're exposed to danger. This world is going to be huge! And quite frankly, I am very excited about that.

That said, sometimes you just want to from A to B quickly, and without fighting unnecessarily, so fast travel helps in that case.

I was talking about zones that you cannot fast travel in - they would be about as big as the areas in TW1/TW2. You'd still be able to fast travel from town to town when the distance becomes too big.

A penalty should only exist for missions or quests which are timed. Generally, however, it's ridiculous to offer players a beautiful and grandiose environment to explore, and then penalize them for doing so.

The fact that it's open world just means that you can move without limitation or hindrance, that there are no invisible barriers preventing your movement.

I believe the story should come first and if limitations are needed - then that's what should be done. Obviously invisible barriers are not a great solution for an open world game - that's why you introduce punishments for leaving the general questing area (I'm talking about main quest stuff here, not irrelevant side quests). That and really difficult to defeat monsters that stop you from going too far away while skipping most of the main quest.

I think CDPR needs to be really careful about how they design quests and means of story progression in this world- the ultimate objective should be to allow players to get the most out the game as possible.

Agreed.

Ultimately I want to play this game for fun, so I should be allowed to take the time to scale mountains and kill monster goats if I want to.

I don't think this is what the game is aiming for. If I wanted to dick around and kill goats, I'd play Skyrim, not a story heavy game such as The Witcher.

Also, I am playing Far Cry 3 right now, and if the W3 environment is anything like that I will be super stoked!

I imagine it'd be quite darker and less tropical than that. If you're talking in terms of graphical fidelity - that would indeed be great.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Well, this is where punishment based on leaving the questing area comes into play - the fog spreads while you travel back and you end up failing the quest/ the quest now changes to something that has a worse/different outcome.

[...]

I don't think this is what the game is aiming for. If I wanted to dick around and kill goats, I'd play Skyrim, not a story heavy game such as The Witcher.

As far as I know, Witcher 3 is pretty unique in being a story-heavy open world game which will be on a bigger scale than Skyrim. So at this point it's inappropriate to confine the game into having a single aim, which will be the completion of the story.

Of course we will get to finish the story in W3, but what else? This is why I am not against allowing players to dick around to their leisure in the game world (let's go fight some monsters!), and it would be seriously awful to make the main or major quests as the timed quests of the game.

I mistakenly finished the Triad story (which is kind of the "main" quest) of Sleeping Dogs before finishing some minor quests, and I have not been back to the game since because I found out the major aspects of the story.

So from my experience, I would not want to play a game where the main or major quests are timed, or which punish the player for exploring the world.

I also don't see the point of having an open world if exploration will be punished or discouraged.

Regarding fast travel: if some players want to fast travel and that option is available for them, why should it matter if they use it, or that they're punished for it. If a player is so hung up on being rewarded for not using fast travel, then let them be rewarded in some way which does not result in ruining the game for people who do fast travel.

We should not forget that in open world games, where the distances are huge, people will want to fast travel at one point or another, and carriages won't be around or horses too slow. If the developers are planning on making the quests geographically restricted, then there's no point to developing an open world game.

Regarding Far Cry 3: yes, I was talking about graphical fidelity. I don't know the word for it, but I thought the "height" of the environment with respect to the player was very well done, and produces a realistic effect of being in the environment. But then again, that could be just because of the FPP.

 

[ReptilePZ]

As far as I know, Witcher 3 is pretty unique in being a story-heavy open world game which will be on a bigger scale than Skyrim. So at this point it's inappropriate to confine the game into having a single aim, which will be the completion of the story.

The Witcher series has always been all about story, so I think it's perfectly appropriate to focus on it, open world or not.

Of course we will get to finish the story in W3, but what else? This is why I am not against allowing players to dick around to their leisure in the game world (let's go fight some monsters!), and it would be seriously awful to make the main or major quests as the timed quests of the game.

Again, if you don't play The Witcher for the story, then I feel like you're missing the point of the entire game. And I'm not saying make them timed all the time. Once you enter the area for the next main quest, you should be given a choice - either complete it, or deside to not do it at all. Explore all you want once you're done with the main uest in one area before moving on to the next one.

I mistakenly finished the Triad story (which is kind of the "main" quest) of Sleeping Dogs before finishing some minor quests, and I have not been back to the game since because I found out the major aspects of the story.

Ideally, the quests would be placed in a similar way that the quests were done in TW1 and TW2, you wouldn't have to leave the main quest area to complete the side quests. Basically, I'm saying keep the chapter structure but let the player have the option of skipping said chapter if they're that interested in just screwing around.

So from my experience, I would not want to play a game where the main or major quests are timed, or which punish the player for exploring the world.

Again, not talking about timed quests but about ones that restrict the player from leaving the general area of the main quest until it's completed. The player would still be able to leave the ara but that would then result in him declining the quest i.e. events in the story play out without player input at that point.

I also don't see the point of having an open world if exploration will be punished or discouraged.

Unlimited exploration all the time would be fine, if I didn't gie a damn about the story. As it is, the story is the only thing Icare about. That and the atmosphere and characters. Anyway, you can still explore all you want, just after you're done with the area you're in. Without punishment (until you enter the next main quest area, as long as you avoid that - you're free to do w/e).

Regarding fast travel: if some players want to fast travel and that option is available for them, why should it matter if they use it, or that they're punished for it. If a player is so hung up on being rewarded for not using fast travel, then let them be rewarded in some way which does not result in ruining the game for people who do fast travel.

We should not forget that in open world games, where the distances are huge, people will want to fast travel at one point or another, and carriages won't be around or horses too slow. If the developers are planning on making the quests geographically restricted, then there's no point to developing an open world game.

Now we're just going in circles. It's not about rewarding players for not using unrestricted fast travel. It's about not screwing up the story and quest design because of unlimited fast travel. You can still fast travel - just not from the middle of nowhere, you need to gt back to a place that has something like a carriage or a boat to use it. Look at the poll, most people seem to be ok with such a system.

Finally, I'd like to ask you this: Why must an open world game necessarily be a sandbox? Especially when it's going against all the game stands for.

 

[Agent_Blue]

Finally, I'd like to ask you this: Why must an open world game necessarily be a sandbox? Especially when it's going against all the game stands for.

Chiming in to say I, for one, am all appreciative of solid storytelling, a thick plot and memorable characters, especially after recent experiences. But I have to ask you back, why do you think they went for open world this time around? They could've just sticked with a 20 times larger map.

This might have qualified as a Catch 22 situation.

It's just nonsensical to restrict the player the way you're suggesting in a open world. Then again I could foresee such casualness hurting the storytelling. However it seems to me they're going down the path you then suggest: the player is always free to not follow through on a quest or forsake it. But he shall deal with the consequences some time in the future. Once the player learns about the undesired effects of his inaction he can always go back, load a previous save and act upon the knowledge.

One way Devs can stimulate slow travelling is through side quests. On your way from point A to point B, you cross ways with an endangered settlement, are given the task to rescue it and then reap the rewards of your heroism. When you're just fast traveling to point B, you'll be missing out on that.

I say make the main quest gripping. Rambling won't cross the player's mind.