Concerns about fast travel

[Agent_Blue]

Yeah, I thought three Italians are too much for one page, you can't handle it />

About portals, if I can see that explanation during the game and fits in logic, of course.

Anche io capisco l'italiano...

Portals are more laborious to design than iFT. That's the catch.

 

[merttol]

No one seems to want a logical explanation for how Geralt can carry dozens of swords, hundreds of alchemical ingredients, potions, runes, junk...etc

I actually do.

Realism can be sacrificed for convenience.

Hmm, it sounds like "lazy" to me. I think people can find amazing things if they just set their minds to it.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Hmm, it sounds like "lazy" to me. I think people can find amazing things if they just set their minds to it.

"Convenient" is what comes to my mind. I'd rather they spend resources on things that are more important than this, personally.

But eh to each his own.

 

[goopit]

White space is vital. In SKyrim you can't walk a yard without bumping into another ruin. That's why the world feels oversaturated, its scale warped by a Black Hole.

TW2 was great at this, they made some places seem like empty space but there's some hidden interest points that you go to later on.

 

[Glaroug.531]

*Glaroug spreads his mighty wings, ready to fly to safety when the boulders sail his way*Maybe I'm just ignorant, but enlighten me. Why is it ok to have a carriage or teleporter fast travel the player, but its a federal offense to fast travel without this?

 

[eddiew]

I think it's a good choice to have fast travel in a game which would be bigger than TES:V, so it's up to the user whether to use it or not.
If you hate the fast travel and want to play like hardcore, you just don't use it. But we can deny the rights some of the player will use fast travel.

 

[wichat]

Skyrim bored me so its fast travel system doesn't care to me. On the contrary, FO NewVegas get me inmerse in every quest without forgetting the main plot, and its FT system look reasonable to me, with overweitgh penalization too. But I used to travel in real time to explore every corner. The only thing I find "lazy" is that you don't have to join a specific point to start this FT, becuase you can do it one one click wherever you are

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Fast Travel: Common Arguments and Their Responses

Argument: Fast travel in a game is optional.

Response: It is not when the world is designed with insta fast travel in mind. The most popular example of insta fast travel is the type of FT used in Skyrim.

The concern is that there will be places in the world which will not have more content than pretty flora or fauna, and hence can be referred to as "empty spaces".

The content that players want is anything other than flora or fauna, including, but not limited to, ambushes, clues, quests, etc. These aspects make the journeying aspect of game play feel more than just going from A to B.

The problem is also that the developer does not want to have two different experiences for people who use fast travel, and those who don't. So in order to have a uniform gaming experience, such content does not exist in the game.

For example, imagine a quest in TW3 where Geralt is told to get rid of some beast in a grotto. Also imagine that the places where Geralt receives the quest and the grotto are located some distance apart on the map, and before receiving this quest Geralt had previously discovered the grotto so he can FT there.

Now if there was a clue somewhere along the road to the grotto, Geralt will miss it if he fast travels there. So the developer, being thoughtful of this eventuality, places the clue somewhere where it cannot be missed. This is fine for that quest, but now imagine 100+ hours of the game where all quests follow the same format because they cannot allow it for the player to miss out on information.

If the game had teleporting devices, Geralt will have to use the roads more often, and hence it may be possible for the developer to be more creative about where to place, and how to give, information (not necessarily clues).

Argument: We don't want to spend hours looking at a horse's arse before we get somewhere, this world is going to be HUGE.

Response: There are methods of FT besides insta fast travel, and these methods will provide convenience in a similar manner. The most popular example asked for here is a network of teleporting devices.

Argument: Teleport devices are not in the lore of The Witcher universe.

Response: I don't know if Wayfarer stones could be used in the context of a network of teleporting devices, but they are an example of such devices existing in TW universe.

Argument: Insta fast travel is not bad.

Response: It's not inherently bad, but the common effects this type of mechanic can have on a game include the following:

-destabilizing pacing: The way insta fast travel ruins pacing is by making it possible for the player to proceed too quickly with game events, or to proceed with them in an inadvisable order. If it's possible for the player to lose sense of game narrative, then the purpose of having a narrative is diminished.

-dulling the narrative: There is less chance of creative potential in a scenario where nothing happens to the player outside of locations to which the player has fast traveled.

-inducing empty spaces: The developer knows the player is going to fast travel, so there's no incentive to provide meaningful content outside of defined locations. The developer also wants to give all players a uniform gaming experience, and not a different one for those who FT and those who don't do that.

-making the quest structure uniform: Developers do not want players missing out on stuff because of using FT, they will make quests in such a way that everything important happens in locations, and not on the roads.

Agrument: You're being selfish, not everyone plays a hardcore game like you. Immersion or realism is not important to everyone.

Response: The issue is not about realism or immersion. The issue is about not having insta fast travel, but instead having teleporting device fast travel.

Argument: Why teleports or carriages or anything, but not insta fast travel.

Response: It comes down to two ideas: 1) traveling should more fun and varied than fake teleporting with insta fast travel or going on foot/horses, and 2) teleporting or carriages do not affect as severely the aspects of game play mentioned above.

Argument: There will be horses in the game, and you won't get to fast travel to places that have not yet been discovered.

Response: Once the player has made it possible to fast travel to most places in a region, the horses are reduced to a gimmick in the game, and can be considered to exist for no other purpose than RPing.

It doesn't matter that you cannot initially fast travel to a location, having insta fast travel introduces too much uniformity in the narrative and quest structure of a game. This reduces the non-linearity of game play, and also the re-playability value of a game.

Argument: Why does this matter.

Response: Why does anything matter. Outside of a nihilistic perspective, anything can be shown to have an intrinsic value. But seriously, it matters because gamers are tired of the problems that insta fast travel produces in a game, and they want something different.

 

[Agent_Blue]

Fast Travel: Common Arguments and Their Responses

Argument: Fast travel in a game is optional.

Response: It is not when the world is designed with insta fast travel in mind. The most popular example of insta fast travel is the type of FT used in Skyrim.

The concern is that there will be places in the world which will not have more content than pretty flora or fauna, and hence can be referred to as "empty spaces".

The content that players want is anything other than flora or fauna, including, but not limited to, ambushes, clues, quests, etc. These aspects make the journeying aspect of game play feel more than just going from A to B.

The problem is also that the developer does not want to have two different experiences for people that use fast travel, and those who don't. So in order to have a uniform gaming experience, such content does not exist in the game.

For example, imagine a quest in TW3 where Geralt is told to get rid of some beast in a grotto. Also imagine that the places where Geralt receives the quest and the grotto are located some distance apart on the map, and before receiving this quest Geralt had previously discovered the grotto so he can FT there.

Now if there was a clue somewhere along the road to the grotto, Geralt will miss it if he fast travels there. So the developer, being thoughtful of this eventuality, places the clue somewhere where it cannot be missed. This is fine for that quest, but now imagine 100+ hours of the game where all quests follow the same format because they cannot allow it for the player to miss out on information.

If the game had teleporting devices, Geralt will have to use the roads more often, and hence it may be possible for the developer to be more creative about where to place, and how to give, information (not necessarily clues).

Argument: We don't want to spend hours looking at a horse's arse before we get somewhere, this world is going to be HUGE.

Response: There are methods of FT besides insta fast travel, and these methods will provide convenience in a similar manner. The most popular example asked for here is a network of teleporting devices.

Argument: Teleport devices are not in the lore of The Witcher universe.

Response: I don't know if Wayfarer stones could be used in the context of a network of teleporting devices, but they are an example of such devices existing in TW universe.

Argument: Insta fast travel is not bad.

Response: It's not inherently bad, but the common effects this type of mechanic can have on a game include the following:

-destabilizing pacing: The way insta fast travel ruins pacing is by making it possible for the player to proceed too quickly with game events, or to proceed with them in an inadvisable order. If it's possible for the player to lose sense of game narrative, then the purpose of having a narrative is diminished.

-dulling the narrative: There is less chance of creative potential in a scenario where nothing happens to the player outside of locations to which the player has fast traveled.

-inducing empty spaces: The developer knows the player is going to fast travel, so there's no incentive to provide meaningful content outside of defined locations. The developer also wants to give all players a uniform gaming experience, and not a different one for those who FT and those who don't do that.

-making the quest structure uniform: Developers do not want players missing out on stuff because of using FT, they will make quests in such a way that everything important happens in locations, and not on the roads.

Agrument: You're being selfish, not everyone plays a hardcore game like you. Immersion or realism is not important to everyone.

Response: The issue is not about realism or immersion. The issue is about not having insta fast travel.

Argument: Why teleports or carriages or anything, but not insta fast travel.

Response: It comes down to two ideas: 1) traveling should more fun and varied than fake teleporting with insta fast travel or going on foot/horses, and 2) teleporting or carriages do not affect as severely the aspects of game play mentioned above.

Argument: There will be horses in the game, and you won't get to fast travel to places that have not yet been discovered.

Response: Once the player has made it possible to fast travel to most places in a region, the horses are reduced to a gimmick in the game, and can be considered to exist for no other purpose than RPing.

It doesn't matter that you cannot initially fast travel to a location, having insta fast travel introduces too much uniformity in the narrative and quest structure of a game. This reduces the non-linearity of game play, and also the re-playability value of a game.

Argument: Why does this matter.

Response: Why does anything matter. Outside of a nihilistic perspective, anything can be shown to have an intrinsic value. But seriously, it matters because gamers are tired of the problems that insta fast travel produces in a game, and they want something different.

Exceptional post.

I do have to insist on two bits:

1) Horses can be made invaluable even with IFT.

but, more importantly,

2) I've just realized the kind of problems that arise from IFT is analogous to that which sprouts from an unlimited inventory. So those seeking to ban IFT, if they apply the rationale to storage, will also raise their voices in favour of a realistic inventory.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

2) I've just realized the kind of problems that arise from IFT is analogous to that which sprouts from an unlimited inventory. So those seeking to ban IFT, if they apply the rationale to storage, will also raise their voices in favour of a realistic inventory.

I don't see these parallels at all. Also, inventory in these games was never "unlimited".

 

[username_2064020]

I don't see these parallels at all.

Same here, I don't see any resemblance between these two things.

 

[merttol]

Realism can be sacrificed for convenience.

"Convenient" is what comes to my mind. I'd rather they spend resources on things that are more important than this, personally.

But eh to each his own.

How much convenience do you want? Your argument about "Convenient" and "Realism" is totally insignificant. Convenience is relative. One point may be convenient for one, but not for another.

Also, I want to say; Witcher games are not for everyone as developers says. Maybe you should play more "convenience" games after all.

 

[Agent_Blue]

I don't see these parallels at all. Also, inventory in these games was never "unlimited".

Well, practically unlimited. Having the ability to carry much more than what you realistically would amounts to the same.

The problems are very much analogous since in both cases quest/gameplay design might be/is hampered for the sake of convenience. A great deal of tactical gameplay is put to waste this way.

To give you a quick example, I could foresee a number of ways in which horses/boats might be useful even in a IFT context, by providing an expanded inventory and the ability to carry bulky cargo, but that would necessarily require a realistic inventory.

 

[dragonbird]

Stop the personal attacks please.

If you want to give your feedback to CDPR, you're welcome to do so. If you want to argue against the views of others, you're also welcome to do so. But you are NOT entitled to attack other players for having different views to your own.

 

[RSIK_4]

i dnt care about fast travel anymore

 

[secondchildren]

I have no idea of what made you think that going for italian was a good idea, but let's follow your steps, you are just making my life easier after all.

Let's leave this comment for a while, think it won't help neither me nor you. But you can stick on this arrongance it you like. Good for you.

Non parto dal presupposto che CDPR far

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Also, I want to say; Witcher games are not for everyone as developers says. Maybe you should play more "convenience" games after all.

Ha.
That's all I have to say about your post, if you think that's what makes The Witcher, the Witcher, and that it's not for me.

I'm replying to your post cmdr!

 

[Agent_Blue]

...

Can I encourage everyone to post in English?

While I myself am able to read Italian, I'm not too sure that's the prevailing case around here. This is a public forum and if discussions are to remain open to all then English seems the wisest option. For instance, formers can now read your reply to a post of which they might not be able to understand a single word of, and that was also a reply to a post originally written in Italian. How are they supposed to get a balanced grasp of the whole conversation and contribute?

Stick to English, please. Thanks.
Otherwise just PM each other.
That's my humble suggestion.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

The concern is that there will be places in the world which will not have more content than pretty flora or fauna, and hence can be referred to as "empty spaces".

Why is that a bad thing?

I'd appreciate spaces that have nothing much going on, except beautiful scenery, collecting ingredients and hunting. Maybe a few collectibles here and there.

The problem is also that the developer does not want to have two different experiences for people who use fast travel, and those who don't. So in order to have a uniform gaming experience, such content does not exist in the game.

Yea, tell that to them before they made 2 paths when less than 50% finish the first playthrough.

Now if there was a clue somewhere along the road to the grotto, Geralt will miss it if he fast travels there. So the developer, being thoughtful of this eventuality, places the clue somewhere where it cannot be missed. This is fine for that quest, but now imagine 100+ hours of the game where all quests follow the same format because they cannot allow it for the player to miss out on information.

Well naturally the clues are going to be in the vicinity of the quest, it's not going to be a random distance from it.

But for main quests or major ones, they can lock fast travel when doing that quests, so something can happen on the road or we find a clue.

-destabilizing pacing: The way insta fast travel ruins pacing is by making it possible for the player to proceed too quickly with game events, or to proceed with them in an inadvisable order. If it's possible for the player to lose sense of game narrative, then the purpose of having a narrative is diminished.

But that's the case even with TW1 and 2. Sometimes the order of quests can get tangled up.
Furthermore, they are dividing the storyline into 3 separate regions, so it should be fine.

And if someone wants to play the quests in whatever order he desires, let him. I don't really see how that's anything to do with fast travel, he can still ride a horse for 20 minutes to another city and do the quests there.

The way I envision FT is like AC3. You can't teleport to any point on the map, you teleport to FT checkpoints. So that concern is mostly moot, quests don't have to be near FT checkpoints and the map can point to areas worth investigating.

Now yes I would prefer if Geralt doesn't magically know where to look, but rather has to read books, talk to people...etc to have an idea where to look. But that's not really related to FT.

-inducing empty spaces: The developer knows the player is going to fast travel, so there's no incentive to provide meaningful content outside of defined locations. The developer also wants to give all players a uniform gaming experience, and not a different one for those who FT and those who don't do that.

Yea, and all dialogue and cutscenes are skippable. You don't see CDPR giving a damn.
More than half gamers don't even finish a 1rst playthrough, let alone start a 2nd. I don't see CDPR giving a damn.

I don't see why they would start giving a damn now.

-making the quest structure uniform: Developers do not want players missing out on stuff because of using FT, they will make quests in such a way that everything important happens in locations, and not on the roads.

I don't see what's so bad with that when it comes to side quests. There can still be quests on the road and FT can be locked in certain quests.

I mean that was already the case in TW1 and TW2, everything important happened in the vicinity of said quest.

And they can always have an investigation system that rewards or demands exploration. For instance there's a quest, I FT to location, talk with the person, and he tells me to investigate several areas for clues. These areas can be completely middle of nowhere spaces.

Argument: Why teleports or carriages or anything, but not insta fast travel.

Response: It comes down to two ideas: 1) traveling should more fun and varied than fake teleporting with insta fast travel or going on foot/horses, and 2) teleporting or carriages do not affect as severely the aspects of game play mentioned above.

Insta fast travel doesn't have to be teleporting to any point on the map. It can be to "checkpoints" let's call them. AC3 had that and integrated the Fort system into it (liberating a fort gave you a fast travel point).

How is that different from teleporting other than an in-game explanation?
I don't mind teleporting of course and if it fits the lore, great. But it would make events in TW1 and 2 seem....kinda trivial? Unless Geralt has a special item or something.

In any case, I don't really care about an in-game explanation. Whether Geralt uses some rare magic to teleport to point A, or just teleports to point A, for me it's the same. As long as I don't have to pay anything for either option, I'm fine.

Response: Once the player has made it possible to fast travel to most places in a region, the horses are reduced to a gimmick in the game, and can be considered to exist for no other purpose than RPing.

Yea, I don't see a problem with that. I don't think a horse or sail boat is vital to a Witcher experience, I've played 2 games with no horses so.
And if it's vital for you, you can still use it and have fun.

It doesn't matter that you cannot initially fast travel to a location, having insta fast travel introduces too much uniformity in the narrative and quest structure of a game. This reduces the non-linearity of game play, and also the re-playability value of a game.

Well I'll tell you that a big thing that is discouraging me from re-playing TW1 is the lack of fast travel (minus one portal) and all the backtracking, swamp travelling bs. If anything, FT can enhance replayability, if I am going to play again but want to skip things that I don't really care about or don't have too much time to waste.

But for the most part, FT is not that important for replayability, I'll judge based on choices and consequences primarily.

And I notice a contradiction. Before you said FT can make players do quests in an inadvisable order and now you say it forces too much linearity. Which one is it?

 

[Garrison72]

I'm having a hard time seeing no fast travel as a viable option. Like any open world game, CDPR will try to lure the player into exploring inch by inch, hence their 'points of interest on the horizon' comment. But what is the purpose of retreading old ground? Locations aren't going to move. Random events aren't going to drastically affect narrative. It's just forcing the player to trudge back and forth by foot, and as I remember, most people didn't like that in TW1. Especially me. I've been enlightened by reading this thread though and I see some of the pitfalls of lazy design regarding fast travel. CDPR just has to avoid them.

As a side note, I hope they use the fog of war effect as we explore.