We're not talking about using and not using it, we're talking about how its implementation forces the developer to change the design of the pacing and the world encounters, and it does, because the ability to jump from town to town renders travel-related content/designs useless.Dalladrion said:
If the developer didn't rely on the fact that the world can be traversed within seconds, then they would include aspects to break the monotony of normal travel during game play.AhmadMetallic said:
Let's think about how a journey is described in a book- it's never the case that the traveler just moves from location to location, there's always something that happens or goes wrong.
Edit: Maybe TW3 will include this aspect because we won't be able to fast travel to undiscovered locations. If we still get interesting game play events with Skyrim-like fast travel, then there's no reason to complain. I think having interrupting events at all times during the game will just break the pacing, and eventually become annoying.
You're right that this game is supposed to be about the journey. TW3 could still have meaningful journey aspects while including fast travel which encourages exploration. This can be done by allowing fast travel only at certain points, like with a portal or similar teleportation device.
I don't like the idea of restricting fast travel till a certain percentage of quests are done because this is such an obvious game mechanic that it breaks immersion (did Geralt lose his legs while he was completing those quests). Also, restricting fast travel to a region presents the same sort of problem- will storytelling content in that region suffer due to the inclusion of Skyrim-like fast travel.
You did not convince me with what you have said so far. Now i know you will most likely not reply as you can most likely not talk about the things you are making. But this situation... well lets just say i have seen it before heck even from you guys *cough TW2 cough* (Its not the finished product!) Oh wait.. none of our complains got listened at during the developmentMM360 said:
Its easy to say "we want to make it fun and interesting. i mean heck the devs for skyrim said the same thing and we all know how that turned out a lifeless soulless world that is 100% pointless to explore with magical quest arrows and insta travel with a built in radar system... and yes yes i know some people like skyrim for whatever reason. I mean do you think they went out and said "yes we want to make a boring and uninteresting world that is lifeless"?
Anyway lets continue.
We know the game will be 30% larger then skyrim. They could not fill the world with content and you guys (a smaller team) want to make a game larger then them. Fine... But im in doubt that you will be able to fill the world with things. Skyrim have the problem where you go from town to town and collect quests. Once you have enough quests for a area you fast travel to the closest location and walk the small remaining way. Why fast travel? Because there is nothing to see in the world.
Now someone will tell me: But there are "dungeons or whatever other POI's in the world!!" But its pointless. Your character have a built in GPS / radar in his head and can see everything next to him. Why bother exploring all you have to do is walk past it and you will know where everything is. Long lost ruins that no one have been to for the last 5000 years? No problem! The built in radar system will show me the way!
But there are horses! That means they are useful as you have to walk there the first time right!? No sorry its a gimmick at best. If the game is built around the fact that the player will just teleport to any location (s)he wish to then there is no point in horses except for people that want to role play! They give more inventory space? Who cares... You can teleport back to town to sell loot. Oh you locked the dungeon so you cant go out from the way you came? Then horses dont mater anyway as you cant bring them into the dungeon anyway.
Then we have the quest arrow. We know that there will be a quest arrow. Sure you might have decided to make a clear quest description. But im in doubt. I feel as if there wont be any point in exploring or reasearching or doing anything if all you have to do is follow the arrow.
And the arrow have another problem (with the GPS). People only focus on the arrow. There is no point in looking at anything you are just meant to "follow the arrow" most people will ignore the world itself as they are to busy looking for the arrow. And how fun is it going to be to look in books for information when the arrow will say "THIS IS THE CORRECT BOOK!!!!"
I would love for you guys to prove me wrong that you will make a world that feel alive and that there are lots of interesting things that there is no quest arrow, no insta travel system. A system that rewards exploring. But... well lets just say i wont hold my breath or bet on you guys doing it correct. The core problem that i can see is that you guys want to copy skyrim. And skyrim.. well if it was not for mods who know where that game would be?
Um, if a person has a map, then they should know where everything is supposed to be located. It's not necessary, of course, for one's map to include every POI, that's why I appreciated when characters would update your map in TW2. The 5000 year old ruins would definitely be located on a map, but that's besides the pointKaldurenik said:
The horses will be for places you haven't yet visited; fast travel only happens from such places that you have.Kaldurenik said:
If you can have some part of the quest where the player figures out where to go or what to do, then there's no harm in having quest arrows for the rest of the way.Kaldurenik said:
I agree- a lot more should be left for the player to figure out. But there's no harm in having a quest arrow once you've determined your destination or objective.Kaldurenik said:
The quest arrows should only give a general location as to where to go. If it says, go to the inn, then the arrow should lead you to the inn, but you should have to find the guy that you're looking for. If you ask the inn keeper and he says, he's over there, then the arrow can appear and show you were that guy is. The arrows should only give the player as much information as the character has.
If you have to find something that's in the general area of such and such, then the game should only lead you into that area and then you have to figure out the rest of the way.
If you have to find something that's in the general area of such and such, then the game should only lead you into that area and then you have to figure out the rest of the way.
Fast Travel is a very convenient thing in a big open-world thing. I don't see why anyone would be hating on it. if you don't like Fast Travel because you think it's breaking your immersion or whatsoever, then the solution is simple: don't use fast travel.
It's that simple. No need to go hating on it and demanding that CDPR doesn't implement FT, just because you don't like it. That's selfish and stupid. If you don't like FT, don't use it.
It's that simple. No need to go hating on it and demanding that CDPR doesn't implement FT, just because you don't like it. That's selfish and stupid. If you don't like FT, don't use it.
I mostly agree with you. There is no reason to hate on fast travel when all you have to do is not use it. But I still want to see a fast travel implementation that is organic, like the ferries, silt striders, and guild guides in Morrowind. That's fast travel that adds to the game.Luc0s said:
There is only the totally speculative justification that having fast travel might somehow allow content developers to become lazy. And I think claiming that as a reason for opposing fast travel, or worse, bad-mouthing the developers under the pretext of "concern" over fast travel, is at best premature and at worst makes a lie of the trust the developers have earned over two successful titles.
It's too simplistic to say "don't use fast travel if you don't want!1". If you bother to read some of the other posts in the thread, you will find reasons for why this argument doesn't work.
I also don't see where people are reading the idea that having a concern about this issue is denigrating CDPR or doubting their abilities. The players are speaking from experience- they have played games where fast travel dulled the narrative and traveling aspects of game play, and with that in mind they are asking for something different.
It was stated that we will not have the ability to fast travel to undiscovered locations in TW3. That's why I think it's possible that we will get the best of both worlds- being able to travel conveniently, and also to experience interesting game play.
But I still don't see a cogent argument against the use of portals or other teleportation devices, other than that they're not omnipresent. The question then is this: do you value convenience over game play?
I also don't see where people are reading the idea that having a concern about this issue is denigrating CDPR or doubting their abilities. The players are speaking from experience- they have played games where fast travel dulled the narrative and traveling aspects of game play, and with that in mind they are asking for something different.
It was stated that we will not have the ability to fast travel to undiscovered locations in TW3. That's why I think it's possible that we will get the best of both worlds- being able to travel conveniently, and also to experience interesting game play.
But I still don't see a cogent argument against the use of portals or other teleportation devices, other than that they're not omnipresent. The question then is this: do you value convenience over game play?
I am reading since post 1 and still haven't found anything. Anyway, disabling FT option might do the trick *hint hint, CDP*cmdrflashheart said:
Lol, there are reasons in the OP, in fact. If you can quote examples of games that maintained those aspects despite having fast travel, then please feel free to do so.
Also, disabling FT would only serve as a gimmick.
I am willing to be convinced. If it can be proven that Skyrim-like fast travel doesn't dull game play, then there's no reason to be concerned.
Because of experience, I have faith in CDPR, and I think that game play in TW3 will not suffer because of Skyrim-like fast travel. But this is just as speculative as saying that it might.
In both cases, people are saying whatever from experience.
Also, disabling FT would only serve as a gimmick.
I am willing to be convinced. If it can be proven that Skyrim-like fast travel doesn't dull game play, then there's no reason to be concerned.
Because of experience, I have faith in CDPR, and I think that game play in TW3 will not suffer because of Skyrim-like fast travel. But this is just as speculative as saying that it might.
In both cases, people are saying whatever from experience.
Same as SC, I didn't find any compelling argument.cmdrflashheart said:
The big one is that devs will become lazy. But by that token, CDPR wouldn't write good dialogue or make good cutscenes because it's all skippable. We are talking about devs that thought it a good idea to have at least a 3rd of the content of a game be unlockable based only on choice, where less than 50% bother to finish the first playthrough let alone play a second time.
So why imagine that CDPR will get lazy *because* of fast travel?
Not being able to travel to undiscovered locations is a given, it's already confirmed and there's no point debating it. When I say fast travel, I mean by that being able to travel from point A and B, when I have already discovered both.
I am all for CDPR finding ways to reward exploration. But rewarding exploration =/= forcing it.
I hate backtracking with a passion (one of the biggest flaws of TW1) and want to be able to avoid it.
Eh.... it's a matter of compromise, giving a Dev the liberty to do what they want (since a game is no less than a piece of art), giving the rest of non-you (or me) people the same chance of having fun as you do.... mix all these and Guy's voice of reason will become clearer.
And oh... OP already had one good reply but he decided to ignore it. Quoting http://en.thewitcher.com/forum/index.php?/topic/33804-concerns-about-fast-travel/page__view__findpost__p__918808
My 2 cents of course.
And oh... OP already had one good reply but he decided to ignore it. Quoting http://en.thewitcher.com/forum/index.php?/topic/33804-concerns-about-fast-travel/page__view__findpost__p__918808
My 2 cents of course.
Just a word or two. I'll probably enjoy exploring wilderness and all the different places in W3, but let's be real - no fast travel in such a huge world would most likely cause annoyance (for me atleast, but I do believe I'm not the only one). Teleport gates (with some nice background story like what are they, why do they exist, etc.) are , I believe, the best option. On the other hand thing like "fast travel" option while meditating would be kind of silly (this is my interpretation/understanding of unlimited fast travel option).
There is only one example given over and over, and that is Skyrim.cmdrflashheart said:
Raising a "concern" that because there is fast travel, therefore the game will be no better than Skyrim is not a "concern" at all. It's a way to tell the developers you think you are more experienced in the design of games and know how to do their job better than they do. That's what I find objectionable.
Making a request that it be practical or rewarding to complete all of the quests in a way that doesn't beg for using fast travel is constructive. Saying the game could turn out badly because another game had fast travel and didn't measure up to your personal standards adds nothing of value and makes it harder for developers to take you seriously.
Exactly. Like I said, it's possible we will get the best of both worlds. Skyrim missed out on the opportunity to "fill the world with content" while the player traveled to undiscovered locations, but it's unlikely that the same will happen here.KnightofPhoenix said:
And yes, if unlimited FT is present, that means no backtracking or forced journeying.
It makes sense that a game should have good narrative aspects, pacing and quest design, but also be convenient. If there are teleportation devices in the game, you can achieve these goals.
A teleportation device will require some backtracking, and on a game of this scale it can be prevented from feeling like an onerous task if teleportation devices are sensibly located.
If the developer knows that the player is going to spend a lot more time walking around than zooming around, then it's likely they will fill the world with content.
I don't mind if there is Skyrim-like fast travel in TW3 as long as the pacing, narrative, and quest designs don't suffer, and journeying on the road doesn't feel like a dull and monotonous experience. Experience has shown that games with fast travel suffer in these aspects, but we don't know from experience how CDPR handles fast travel in their RPGs...Well, there were wayfarer stones from TW.
But isn't that the best example? There were more, but this one is most appropriate because of the parallels CDPR has themselves drawn between these two games.KnightofPhoenix said:
Also, I don't see anyone taking on a tone here that could be considered impertinent.
This is a good idea, but how is this different from the constraining chapter format of game play; you're still completing quests within a designated area till you're free to move.KnightofPhoenix said:
Also, the above idea is not conducive for exploration purposes- if there are some restrictions which prevent the player from moving beyond a perimeter, then the open world becomes a tease.
It would make sense if some quests have time or perimeter restrictions, but it would not serve the entire game to be like that.
I understand what you were saying, Guy, I am just speaking against the idea.
Well GTA and Assassin's Creed all have fast travel to a substantial degree, and they make travelling fun too, especially the latter.cmdrflashheart said:
Now I'm not expecting Geralt to be a parkour genius, gods no. But the issue here is not fast travel. The issue here is making exploration and travelling fun. The inclusion or omission of fast travel is neither a necessary obstacle or boon to this, respectively.