we don't really know if it makes loading screens longer since it's never been implemented in open world.
simple background image require no processing power, gameplay does a lot, so second thread loadding world gets less computing power = longer loadding + low fps on gameplay.
this is not rocket science
I get the point of the post... but at the same time I get it not.
In most of the games that there are fast travel I almost don't use it. Why?
1. You have not fast travel until you find the landmark.
2. Most of the fun in these games are related to finding extra things to do in the road that goes from A to B,.
Of course things are not always near, and you need to perform big travels, it is the idea in big open maps: thnigs can be FAR. And you need to travel, to these places.
I don't find fast travel a problem. And RDR had a very simple map, with easy roads to follow.
Anyway, my worries about these topics is that these seem to make a big buzz from nothing. Now it seems that if the game has fast travel some people will hate it and if it has not some other people will do the same. And I think it is the bad approach, from us.
I've not worries about fast travel, heels, combat mechanics, etcetera. My worries are the correct implementation of the features, in general, of the game. As a Mario game, not all level are equal good, some of them are great and some of them are normal. It is the average of all the features that make something great or not.
I'm going off topic? No. I'm saying that fast travel will be good depending of the global implementation of the game and the quests. If you constantly need to go from north to south to north to south and never stop in the middle it is not fast travel the wrongly implemented thing. will be the game itself, the one with an issue.
In most of the games that there are fast travel I almost don't use it. Why?
1. You have not fast travel until you find the landmark.
2. Most of the fun in these games are related to finding extra things to do in the road that goes from A to B,.
Of course things are not always near, and you need to perform big travels, it is the idea in big open maps: thnigs can be FAR. And you need to travel, to these places.
I don't find fast travel a problem. And RDR had a very simple map, with easy roads to follow.
Anyway, my worries about these topics is that these seem to make a big buzz from nothing. Now it seems that if the game has fast travel some people will hate it and if it has not some other people will do the same. And I think it is the bad approach, from us.
I've not worries about fast travel, heels, combat mechanics, etcetera. My worries are the correct implementation of the features, in general, of the game. As a Mario game, not all level are equal good, some of them are great and some of them are normal. It is the average of all the features that make something great or not.
I'm going off topic? No. I'm saying that fast travel will be good depending of the global implementation of the game and the quests. If you constantly need to go from north to south to north to south and never stop in the middle it is not fast travel the wrongly implemented thing. will be the game itself, the one with an issue.
Last edited:
If the game is going to have fast travel it should be interruptable by encounters with enemies, other "random" (actually pre-cooked) encounters, and also times of rest at night during which there can be conversation if more than one character is present.
Because it's too tempting to use otherwise?
Yeah,I'm not the biggest fan of fast travel either and I tend to use it in later playthroughs after I've discovered most of the world on myself but if I have the option to use it I most likely will because I get lazy after a while.After the deed is done I feel bad about it like after eating McDonald's but I still do it so if there's an option to toggle it my body and soul would be better off.I think it's safe to asume that we all feel the same way.Heck our signifficant others/families and employers/teachers are probably shaking in their boot as well.
Same thing with me. Strength of will gives into the almighty power of lazy :horse:Because it's too tempting to use otherwise?
I'd love to agree with you, but if you see the same area in like your 3rd replay of the game, it gets repetitive. You get the been there, seen that feeling and want to get it over with. That's why they have to include fast travel. As much as I love to explore and definitely will not fast travel on my first playthrough, I will in my second/third/etc. ones because I've seen it all by then. Did the same in Oblivion and believe me, Cyrodiil's overworld is REALLY empty and boring outside of the main hubs of activity.
I say yes to fast travel, because without it, you'll only get annoyed in future playthroughs because you have to
i.e trek from Novigrad to Velen (as shown in the 35 minute gameplay video it takes 15-20 minutes at full gallop on horseback)
edit: I did not realise this thread was ancient :< Sorry if this was already mentioned.
Last edited:
I will never understand why people make so much of an issue over instantaneous fast travel in video games.
The Bethesda forums had this exact same debate before Skyrim was even announced, with people arguing that it shouldn't even be an option because people would miss content, rush through the game etc.
Well, news flash, it's not your right to dictate how people play the game. If they want to travel from one place to another in less than a minute, they should be able to. The system is entirely OPTIONAL, meaning you can just leave the damn thing alone yourself. CDPR are in no way forcing you to utilise this system, and have provided plenty of other methods to aid your travelling.
The Bethesda forums had this exact same debate before Skyrim was even announced, with people arguing that it shouldn't even be an option because people would miss content, rush through the game etc.
Well, news flash, it's not your right to dictate how people play the game. If they want to travel from one place to another in less than a minute, they should be able to. The system is entirely OPTIONAL, meaning you can just leave the damn thing alone yourself. CDPR are in no way forcing you to utilise this system, and have provided plenty of other methods to aid your travelling.
Loading is done when large amounts of data need to be transferred from the hard drive to more accessible memory - RAM, vRAM... A modern processor's computing power is A LOT higher than the hard drive's data transfer rate, so there should be plenty of time for the processor to do something else in between managing the loading.
So, if you were to load all the assets you need for the gameplay during the loading screen first, there's no problem with playing while loading - except that parts of your memory are cluttered with data for the loading gameplay, limitting the amount of data which you were originally interested in loading.
Games have done this for years: narrow corridors, elevators, sparse environments, are often used to seemlessly load the next "level" without the player noticing. The whole principle of open world games is based on this: predicting which data will be needed in the near future and streaming that stuff into the RAM - that's why there are no loading screens, not because magically the whole world and all the game's assets can be stored in RAM. When this prediction fails, we notice stutter - that's the CPU waiting for data from the hard drive to arrive.
Looks like there's a bit more rocket science involved than you think.
yes they load small parts of map during regular gameplay but when you fast travel it is usually to far place so whole new surrounding must be loaded and thus loadding screen just like in skyrim.
Didn't read the thread, so not sure if this was already mentioned.
I'm up for fast travel. In fact, I may have done it in a more lenient fashion. That is, you can fast travel only to specific locations, but from anywhere. I'm saying this based on my experiences with Skyrim. I teleport a huge amount in that game, mostly for inventory purposes, so the thought of always needing to reach a signpost or some alternative is a bit tiring. Then again, if TW3 won't require such frequent inventory management, it maybe won't be as bad.
I'm up for fast travel. In fact, I may have done it in a more lenient fashion. That is, you can fast travel only to specific locations, but from anywhere. I'm saying this based on my experiences with Skyrim. I teleport a huge amount in that game, mostly for inventory purposes, so the thought of always needing to reach a signpost or some alternative is a bit tiring. Then again, if TW3 won't require such frequent inventory management, it maybe won't be as bad.
My point was that loading does not necessarily hinder gameplay - especially not due to a lack of computing power - and that providing some form of gameplay is far from impossible, while a new area is loaded when fast travelling.
My point was not that there should not be any loading screens because it's open world. Explaining streaming was only an example for loading not affecting gameplay.
Corridors were another example, that is more relevant to the issue at hand, because in these corridors a whole new surrounding - the next level of the game - is loaded as well without interrupting the gameplay.