Concerns about fast travel

[KnightofPhoenix]

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.

Yea there are risks, but all designs can have pitfalls.

From what I have seen of CDPR however, I don't think laziness is an issue.

 

[Szoreny]

Its setting up a straw man to inextricably link fast travel to poor quest and world design. I can't help but see many of the anti-fast travel posts here projecting dislikes of Bethesda's design chops onto unrestricted fast travel mechanics in general. I trust CDPR to design a world not built around a FT crutch, but one that rewards players for free-form exploration while not arbitrarily disallowing FT.

Horseback FT should be an option, but why anyone would want to over use it when navigating through the lushness that is a CDPR designed landscape...I can't say.

I've played TW2 four times now and I still *walk* everywhere just soaking it in.

(oh props to CDPR for adding a walk function this time, just sayin')

 

[Glaroug.531]

My head's a' hurtin'. There is some serious food for thought here. Fast travel was never a big deal for me. Use it or don't. Something tells me RED won't make a game that boils down to a series of Mario like platforming in the form of fast travel.

To be honest, I know I'll be hoisted on a pointy stick for this, but I don't remember poor quest design in Skyrim that had me flying across the map to and fro (outside of those "infinite" thieves guild fetch quests). It was rather regional and reasonable if I remember correctly. If something had me going to a far away city, say as I was playing a soldier and needed to deliver a message to the imperial Capital, I could take one of the convenient wagons.

You post was very thought provoking and great Flash, but view fast travel in a similar manner as KnightofPheonix, who apparently is nothing more than a good for nothing simpleton who has no business playing the Witcher

Glaroug said to no one in particular.

 

[Agent_Blue]

Its setting up a straw man to inextricably link fast travel to poor quest and world design. I can't help but see many of the anti-fast travel posts here projecting dislikes of Bethesda's design chops onto unrestricted fast travel mechanics in general. I trust CDPR to design a world not built around a FT crutch, but one that rewards players for free-form exploration while not arbitrarily disallowing FT.

Horseback FT should be an option, but why anyone would want to over use it when navigating through the lushness that is a CDPR designed landscape...I can't say.

I've played TW2 four times now and I still *walk* everywhere just soaking it in.

(oh props to CDPR for adding a walk function this time, just sayin')

The point seems to be against unrestricted fast travel rather than against fast travel in general.

Interesting how you attempted to portray the points against unrestricted instant fast travel as straw man but then proceed to write what essentially amounts to a profession of faith in CDProjekt's abilities to circumvent them.

While I see some of the potential problems with IFT, It is yet to be established these will automatically arise no matter how well CDProjekt tackles the whole issue. The more I think of it the more portals - turning FT into an in-game asset - emerge as the superior solution.

I also believe there's one thing CDPRojekt can do to balance things out:
Award walking, horse or boat riding one or two distinctive advantages over simply fast travelling. That way, you may get the convenience but you stand to lose something.

 

[username_2064020]

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.

i just stated that didn't seem an appropriate thing to do but that it would make easier for me to elaborate on my points.
Not sure WHERE you are seeing "arrogance" to be honesT.

Yes, but like I said this maybe interesting for us who spend hours in gaming, not for an occasional player.

I don't see how the time one spend gaming should be relevant, AT ALL.
Beside, this statement directly contradicts what you wrote in the previous paragraph about artistic integrity and such.

There's not way to know nowadays which consequence and result their choice will have. When TW3 will be out, we will judge it point by point.

Nothing exists in a vacuum and there are plenty of previous examples giving strong hints about how some design choices can affect the whole product in direct and indirect ways.

This we will see when the game is released. As far as I'm concerned I stick on my faith that they'll make a good job, and that my attention won't focus on the FT, but on else.

I don't waste "faith" for any god, let alone for developers.
While I can be confident in their competence, I don't stick to faith, I set expectations and argue for what I think is the best possible solution.

Beside, even if I liked CDPR previous products, they weren't exactly flawless. Not even close, in fact, so I have every right to be wary when I hear concerning things.

Also consider that there has never been before an appropriately designed open world game imo.
CUT
the simple idea of an open world gives me the ulcer.

I *STRONGLY* disagree on this.
Ultima, Gothic, Risen, Darklands, Fallout 1 and 2, Might & magic and so on.
Plenty of excellent examples of (more or less) open worlds handled properly.
In fact I would argue that among good RPG games barely few non-open ones are worth of mention.

In the sense that no other Dev has ever given such importance to the storyline and characters (since P:T and BG I mean).

I also strongly disagree on this. Story's relevance is overrated, I don't care about it if not as an "added value", never as the core point. I will never, ever put the storyline above the experience in a game.

 

[Szoreny]

The point seems to be against unrestricted fast travel rather than against fast travel in general.

Right, I should've qualified my discussion of FT as unrestricted in the first sentence rather than the second

Interesting how you attempted to portray the points against unrestricted instant fast travel as straw man but then proceed to write what essentially amounts to a profession of faith in CDProjekt's abilities to circumvent them.

I can see how that applies to what I wrote. My point was that there aren't inherent problems with unrestricted fast travel, and I don't see how specific arguments against it can be formed and applied over TW3, a game we know almost nothing about. But I do respect the concern about the impact FT *could* have on world design, I'm just unconvinced the mechanic deserves to be reflexively flogged as a design killer.

Also I'm not sure we should conflate Unrestricted FT with Instant FT. An Unrestricted FT system can still expend in-game time.

While I see some of the potential problems with IFT, It is yet to be established these will automatically arise no matter how well CDProjekt tackles the whole issue.

Yes

The more I think of it the more portals - turning FT into an in-game asset - emerge as the superior solution.

Why?

I also believe there's one thing CDPRojekt can do to balance things out:
Award walking, horse or boat riding one or two distinctive advantages over simply fast travelling. That way, you may get the convenience but you stand to lose something.

Pretty much what I meant when I wrote 'what essentially amounts to a profession of faith in CDProjekt's abilities.'

Though the advantages I was thinking of for real-time travel were simply the discovery of well-hidden content or time-specific events like night-time encounters.

 

[merttol]

Assassin Creed 3 is another example of a game where fast travel probably hurts the entire experience. It's simply mess and horrible. It ends up feeling like bloated zones with a FTs that works against them because of the different maps and where the objective locations are. Worst example as possible for a RPG game.

As well as, in my opinion, one of the greatest fast travel system is in Dark Souls.

I also agree with Tuco most of things he said above.

 

[Agent_Blue]

Right, I should've qualified my discussion of FT as unrestricted in the first sentence rather than the second



I can see how that applies to what I wrote. My point was that there aren't inherent problems with unrestricted fast travel, and I don't see how specific arguments against it can be formed and applied over TW3, a game we know almost nothing about. But I do respect the concern about the impact FT *could* have on world design, I'm just unconvinced the mechanic deserves to be reflexively flogged as a design killer.

Also I'm not sure we should conflate Unrestricted FT with Instant FT. An Unrestricted FT system can still expend in-game time.



Yes



Why?




Pretty much what I meant when I wrote 'what essentially amounts to a profession of faith in CDProjekt's abilities.'

Though the advantages I was thinking of for real-time travel were simply the discovery of well-hidden content or time-specific events like night-time encounters.

Portals have none of the potential disadvantages of UFT while still awarding the player a mitigated yet convenient form of fast travel. The key point, however, is every time you turn a feature into a in-game asset the whole serrated wheels mechanism, quests/gameplay/story, suddenly expands in its potential.

Take, for example, navigation. Usually a map is just handed out to the player from the get go and for all intents and purposes it is entirely detached form the game world. While the player is taking a look at It time does not pass and the world around essentially freezes up and waits for him to finish up. He cannot come under attack, for example.

Now, what would happen if you were to turn that map into a real in-game object?
First, you'd have to get one, to buy one or get it as a quest reward. Every time you'd take a look at the map, time would not stand still and you'd better not take a peek in unpromising surroundings; enemies might attack. You'd also stand a chance of someone stealing it from you, and then you'd have to navigate by the stars, or look for other natural hints.

Can you see the potential?

The same would apply to portals. You'd have to find them, to fight your way to get there, etc. The amount of quests and story that could be designed around them is staggering.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Can you see the potential?

I might be an exception here, but what you described with the map is practically trivial to me.

I mean I guess it could help with the immersion of many people, but I personally I'm unaffected.

But I don't mind any design choice as long as it's convenient and not an unnecessary pain in the ass. So if portals can be done right and not be annoying, I'm fine with it.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

The ideas in that post are not mine alone, I compiled a bunch from this entire thread in order to prevent redundancy and repetition because people were asking some questions anew. I am not saying, however, that I disagree with those ideas.

There's also a misconception that stating these concerns is somehow a slight against CDPR. If you guys could just stop white knighting for a second, then you'll realize these concerns apply to problems inherent to the mechanics of insta fast travel, and anyone who is intimate with TW3 game development probably knows of them already.

We are talking about this because the idea of insta fast travel in the next game does not appeal to us.

Now to you, KoP:

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.

Me too, but there needs to be balance. The world outside towns, caves, etc. needs to have a life outside of serving a purpose for your travel. Adding these dynamics will only enhance the gaming experience.

It's possible to include them with insta fast travel, but then players who FT a lot will miss out on these adventures, and then possibly whine about the game catering to "hardcore" gamers only.

This is what players do, they even complain about a game having technical issues when its their PCs that can't handle it.

If these elements exist besides having insta fast travel, then that would be awesome.

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

This is not the same. Imagine if Elias from the Succubus quest waited for you somewhere to ambush you, but because you FT around you missed him and the quest never gets completed.

Or perhaps you missed Sindar's cottage because it was located between two points between which you could FT, and you never got to complete the Poker quest or do the Troll quest in an alternative manner.

I would be okay with there being consequences for using FT in certain situations.

What I don't like is the idea of quests saturating a town, cave, village etc. environment with everything quest related; what's the point of the open world if game play is going to be pigeonholed only to locations where the player can FT.

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.

No, there's no point in having an open world if everything is conveniently located at a stone's throw. What encourages exploration, then, pointless escapism?

I can understand that some quests may have perimeter or time restrictions, but why lock FT?

The game shouldn't try so hard to protect the player from failure; in fact, I remember when I did Roche's path and didn't complete the harpy feather quest before the Eternal Battle, I failed it. That's okay.

I hope the quests are made as creatively as possible, and not restricted by considerations to the player using FT or failing. If that's the case, then it would be okay to have insta FT in TW3.

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.

Your perspective is not taking into consideration that this next game will be an open world game. Yes, it was okay to do quests which ever way you wanted in the previous games, but they were part of the same chapters, and story logic was unobstructed and intelligible.

I don't appreciate thinking that if the player wants to keep track of the story, then they better stick to this region ONLY. Why get rid of the chapter format then? Why have an open world?

Pacing is crucial to narrative, and narrative is the whole point of the game. Insta fast travel makes rapid exploration possible, and thus ruins pacing. Even if I wanted to regulate myself and not go beyond a certain boundary so I don't ruin the story for myself, I wouldn't exactly know where to stop, even in a given region.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

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.

The problem still remains because Geralt doesn't get to walk as much as he would if teleports were used. I imagine that if Geralt was walking around more there would be more of an incentive to provide content in the world outside of FT checkpoints. Why would the player pay attention to the rest of the world at all if nothing exists there but flora and fauna.

Ultimately, this is a game. If a feature doesn't help enchance game play, but only seems to be there for the prettiness, then it's not a very good feature. The open world is a waste of time and resources if it's going to be empty and desolate save for flora and fauna. [Well, they're not my time and resources, so they can be spent anyway possible, these are just my two cents on the idea].

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.

Yeah, that's related to the omniscient internal GPS. It should not be possible for the player to know where things are located, or what to do etc., without effort on the player's part. Quest arrows would makes sense after the player has done his thinking.

Now I understand that some players are perfectly okay with following directives, so I wish there was a way to toggle this feature.

Or perhaps the Dark mode of this game could have less hand holding in Geralt's investigative quests etc.

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.

But doesn't everyone get the same cutscenes regardless? The difference is player choice. If it's possible for the game to be different for people who abuse insta FT and those who don't, then I wouldn't have a problem with insta FT in the game.

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.

If the whole idea is to recreate the chapter format and perimeters of TW2, then why waste time and resources on an open world.

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.

I agree- a Dark mode for questing AND combat. That would be awesome. It won't be fun, however, if whatever you're looking for is uniformly located in said areas, and not in their vicinity (which you would miss if you FT directly to such an area).

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.

The difference is that teleportation only occurs when you walk up to a teleporting device and activate it.

Now this can be done in some interesting ways- perhaps we need passwords for the teleports, perhaps some only take you to specific places, or perhaps they can be unlocked specifically by player action, and not just "discovering" them.

Insta FT happens from anywhere to anypoint previously discovered.

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.

The fact is that these transportation modes will be made redundant because of insta FT. Why waste time and effort on them if they're not central to game play. If I wanted to LARP so badly, I'd go do a War reenactment, not play a video game.

It's true that you can use your horse as a purse, but then why not just give Geralt a backpack instead of a horse?

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.

All I meant was that it would be boring if the same stuff appears in relatively the same spots for all quests time and again. This also happened in TW2- most NPCs never went anywhere.

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?

If quests are designed around not letting players miss things, then it's possible for game play to be linear for each quest encountered. You meet the person for the quest, you investigate, and come up with a solution.

Despite CDPR stating that their quests will have a nonconsecutive structure, we can still expect there to be linearity because of insta FT- if you're never allowed to miss anything, and everything occurs in places where you've FTed, then everything is always going to be A-B-C; there's less variance.

The other point is talking about increased disorder in narrative because of insta FT, and it's not a contradiction. It's that insta FT has the possibility to affect two different aspects of game play in a marginally contrary manner.

Increased disorder is narrative is undesirable because story logic should be intelligible to maintain player interest. And decreased variance in quest structure is undesirable because it makes for boring game play.

 

[Agent_Blue]

Me too, but there needs to be balance. The world outside towns, caves, etc. needs to have a life outside of serving a purpose for your travel. Adding these dynamics will only enhance the gaming experience.

It's possible to include them with insta fast travel, but then players who FT a lot will miss out on these adventures, and then possibly whine about the game catering to "hardcore" gamers only.

This is the crux of the matter.

It's not so much that gamers will complain but that CDProjekt might think to themselves:

- Gee, everyone will [unrestrictedly] fast travel, so why bother?

They might be tempted to forsake the in-between areas since they might feel no one's going to be around to enjoy them anyway. Or they could go in the opposite direction just to ensure no one abuses the feature and plant a POI once every yards. Either way, it's a negative side-effect of UFT.

Point is it's not a chain reaction. CDProjekt can stop for a minute, think it through and then proceed the way they deem best. The potential for disaster is there alright but UFT does not necessarily bring it about. So let's keep then keenly aware of these pitfalls, shall we?

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yea I think we are mostly in agreement, so I won't reply point by point.

Of course a lot of the things cmdr eloquently points out are very valid concerns, and I share most if not all of them.
But I believe that this is more dependent on quest design than insta FT as such.

Is it more likely that these concerns are materialized with insta FT? Perhaps, I haven't played enough open world games to speak with any authority. I will say that my experience with AC3 was very pleasant and there's not much I'd change as far as quest design in concerned.

But in any case yes people should voice their concern to CDPR when it comes to world and quest design. I think a both of both worlds scenario can be reached.

 

[Sken]

My understanding from all the recent CDPR interviews is that quests, side quests, exploration are critical and all have an impact on how the story unfolds, the consequences to the world, and the ending that your play choice dictates.

They are all connected to the main plot within each region, which is then connected to the games overarching plot. It sounds like CDPR with their carefully hand crafted quests have already implemented the reason to not want to fast travel, as it will impact your game experience and will have a significant impact on the outcome of the game.

You will likely miss out on skill or combat upgrades, making allies, discovering important bits of information to help with future encounters or enable key quests.

In all interviews they talk about points of interest always in view, with the plan to entice the player to explore. These points of interest have been carefully placed within the map between larger location to encourage exploration. They also talk about the fun of traveling by boat or horse and all the ways they plan to make the world interesting, and how the NPC's in the world react to your choices in quests and side quests.

My point here is they are building a game for you not to fast travel, that game at minimum will take approximately 50 hours to complete. Many players may not want to do the side quests and focus only on the main quest, with a few essential side quests thrown in. These players will want fast travel.

Devoted Witcher and RPG fans, or players who have the time in their lives to play 100+ hours will go for the full experience. You know the players who played through Witcher 2 more than once, who made different choices and choose different paths on each play through. These players will play the 100 hour experience most likely three times to influence the world differently in each play through, to experience how their choices lead to each of the three epilogues.

So in a nutshell, in my opinion fast travel should be included, but due to the importance of side quests and exploration already confirmed to influence the main plot it will be beneficial, crucial and rewarding to the player who is not going to use it.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

My point here is they are building a game for you not to fast travel, that game at minimum will take approximately 50 hours to complete. Many players may not want to do the side quests and focus only on the main quest, with a few essential side quests thrown in. These players will want fast travel.

Devoted Witcher and RPG fans, or players who have the time in their lives to play 100+ hours will go for the full experience.

If you think about it, anyone who will make a beeline to complete the main story might take just as much time with teleporting FT vs. insta fast travel; it all depends on the portal network design and whether or not is it accommodating in that sense. For example, if you have some one-way teleports for the beginning stages, but two-way teleports for the end stages (which go everywhere), then by the end you can pretty much insta FT.

It's not believable at all that the teleporting FT is not going to appeal to non-avid gamers- their expectations are on the low end of the spectrum, they will be happy having any sort of FT.

I don't like the idea that if you really want to play the game properly, then don't fast travel at all. EVER. That's a bit extreme, and that's why I like the idea of teleporting devices; they seem to accommodate for all the nitty gritty things that avid players want, and also provide convenience for all players, and not just non-avid gamers.

If the idea is to make a Skyrim-like game that doesn't fail in the aspects in which Skyrim did, then yeah, insta fast travel is irreplaceable.

 

[Garsun]

Could they at least make a "no fast travel" mode, and once you started playing in this mode, there's no way to turn fast travel on?

 

[wichat]

Could they make a "no fast travel" mode, and once you started playing in this mode, you have no way to turn fast travel on?

Why complicated?

Both systems can be applied perfectly without disturbing concequences if is the choice of the player....

 

[4s4sin96]

Why complicated?

Both systems can be applied perfectly without disturbing concequences if is the choice of the player....

Yup...
I hope it will be something like in Assassin's Creed...

 

[vongraudenz]

If done correctly, fast travel can a beneficial thing for players who wish to use it. Fast travel does not have to ruin the design of a game. If the game is designed for normal modes of travel and then Fast Travel layered over top of the game, that would work. So what if it causes some players to fail some quests, not all players are completionists, they just want to play the main plot and move on. If they enjoyed the game they will play the it again, this time using Fast Travel more strategically.

Not to mention there are any number of different ways Fast Travel can be limited so as to not totally ruin the experience. It can be done so that you can only Fast Travel to populated areas and/or coach stops, and then you must proceed out into the wilderness either on foot or by horse. A coach service, as previously mentioned, can be used as a device for enabling the Fast Travel effect.

The portal idea can work as well, but there should be a little bit of work involved in using a portal. Portals can make magic seem to common place, and easy to use. Plus it could cause the player difficulties if in their world the pogrom against mages is occurring.

 

[bcheero]

Fast travel is great. For those who like to walk around, go right ahead but I want the option to instantly travel to cities and villages.