Concerns about too many distractions from main storyline

[Rawls]

Concerns about too many distractions from main storyline

So I thought this was an interesting question raised by an article in Forbes. Do you think the open world will create too many distractions?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...tcher-3-suffer-from-assassins-creed-syndrome/

The above video shows off gameplay from CD Projekt RED’s upcoming open-world action-RPG The Witcher III: Wild Hunt. A lot of it looks really cool. It’s graphically sumptuous, filled with cool-looking monsters and an overhauled (and hopefully improved) combat system, not to mention sex, romance, and creepy/sexy blood rituals. And Charles Dance (of Game of Thrones fame.)

But a few things worry me. As much as I like the idea of open-world video games, they’re so often aimless, tedious affairs stuffed with filler that soon overshadows the narrative, mucking up the pacing in the process. Let’s call this Assassin’s Creed Syndrome, or ACS for short. A game suffering from ACS never lacks for something to do. There’s side-missions galore, treasure (or junk, depending on your perspective) to find everywhere, and various challenges to overcome, all of which is optional or semi-optional.

One series that has, unsurprisingly, been bogged down by ACS is Far Cry, another Ubisoft franchise. Every outpost you liberate in the first-person-shooter series becomes a hub of busy work. In Far Cry 4 you can hunt, help shoot stunt videos, rescue hostages, buy stuff, defend the outpost from predators and enemies, and lord knows what else—all on top of the story missions. A lot of this can be fun, but it can also be overwhelming. And the open world becomes less a world, less a part of a grand story, and more of a theme park. It’s the MMO-ification of video games, in a sense, even of video games that are mostly single-player.

At about the 4 minute mark in the above video the narrator starts talking about all the stuff you can do in the Northern Kingdoms in this big, bold new open-world Witcher. Race horses! Get drunk! Have sex! Play cards! Earlier, the trailer discusses how areas liberated from monsters will become bustling hubs with stuff to buy and missions and what-have-you. Sort of like Far Cry 3 and 4. Which makes me worry that the game will suffer from ACS. Maybe CDP RED can pull off an open-world quasi-theme-park RPG without making it feel bogged down and over-saturated with side content. But I’m worried that the narrative poignancy of the last game will be lost in an abundance of fluff. Even The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings suffered from some pacing problems thanks to some less-than-stellar side quests. Fortunately, these were the exception to the rule. By and large that game did a marvelous job at interweaving story, action, and RPG elements.

I may be worrying for no reason. I’m sure the game will still be remarkable. I just hope it doesn’t stray too far into Assassin’s Creed territory. The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt launches on May 19th on PC, PS4, and Xbox One.

This is my biggest remaining concern about the game to this point. However there have been other articles that seem to indicate that even side quests will have narrative effects on the main quest line (i.e. http://comicbook.com/2015/04/07/the-...identical-sid/). I believe the CDPR will strike the right balance based on everything I have heard.

 

[eLeF1]

If what Iwinski said years ago about quests being concentrated into hubs was true then it really should't be a problem. You should not have to run around so much and everything should be less tedious.

 

[Phalzyr]

Short: No (How can more content ever be a bad thing? If it had less side quests/less involved side quests then you'd get the staple most Open world games have. Empty boring travel/larger than it truly need to be)

Long: Since side quests are optional the only reason they'd distract me from the main quest is if I want to do them, then they'd be a good distraction I love doing all side quests I can when playing an open world. The problem I have with games like Skyrim is the side quests are badly organized/not well planned out and that they are hollow and story light. (For a lot of Skyrim's side quests you get them at a time where you'd have to go way out of you way to complete them)

I hope TW3 Side quests a bit more thought out in when/where you go to solve them.

 

[RedFire01]

The distractions are optional though. If you don't want to do them then don't do them. Having so many different distractions is important as it adds variety for people who want a break from the story.

 

[Lieste]

The recent interviews indicated that the sidequests feed into the main story. They aren't entirely seperated, though are optional.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

I've asked exactly the same question many times already on this very forum. And the question still stands...

Well, we'll all find out soon enough anyway.

 

[Phinnway]

No concerns at all

For one thing, they already put out a video discussing how exactly they're going to make an open-world game with the same narrative quality as the previous two games.

Spoiler

[size=+2]Talk beings around 8:00[/size]

For another, in one of the recent gameplay previews the journalist said The Witcher 3 isn't a "true" sandbox game. Behind the scenes, your path through the world is secretly being manipulated by the designers. Everything is by design.

So yeah, I think they will handle balancing exploration with narrative quality really well.

 

[Phalzyr]

Behind the scenes, your path through the world is secretly being manipulated by the designers. Everything is by design.

Been avoiding video and a lot of the interviews so missed that tidbit. Interesting. I think I'd like that a bit more than fully open. I hate not knowing where I should go next or more importantly if I go the wrong way I'll miss something interesting

 

[Phinnway]

@PhalzyrIt's not so much that the world is linear as it is that they used clever techniques to try to direct the player through the world in a certain order. If that makes sense...

It's still open-world, but you will feel the invisible hand of the designers directing you where to go next in the open-world.

 

[wichat]

True... We will be secrectly manipulated by BBDD Big Brother Design Dev... Well,, who claims? Maybe the Fate has a RED face

 

[Cirivia]

No concern at all. If it's anything like the previous Witcher games you'll have a journal that will automatically update with more info as you progress. So, if you do a few quests on the main storyline then go do six hours worth of side quests you'll still have the journal entry from the main quest that you can always read to refresh your memory.

 

[Phalzyr]

@Phinnway I understood what you were saying. Open-world but with a guiding hand hinting the direction one should go.

I didn't mean by not fully-open world the way it came across I guess.

I'm a bit of a completetionist. So being a bit more guided in my course might help me not fear of missing something...

OP: Can I vote for both:
Too many distractions? There is no such thing in an RPG. and I think CDPR will get it just right.

 

[PT-Desu]

My only concern is if I'm in the middle of a important quest following someone and i spot a point of interest in the distance, lets say, a woman in need of help.
I assume i can just side track and help her.
Either that or CDPR made sure that wouldn't happen.

 

[Giovanni1983]

In any other game i might be concerned. In the witcher 3, i'm not concerned at all.

The world of the witcher is so interesting and alive to me that it doesn't really cross my mind.

 

[Geralt_of_bsas]

I dont think this will be a problem at all, TW1 is one of the games that best handled how side content interacts with main content that I've ever seen.

In the world of the witcher, a world not thought to be just a power fantasy playground for you, the hero and center of the universe, there are moments where you just simply cant "make the story go on" at total will. Sometimes you can't just decide to follow a main quests or whatever, because you dont know what that is, or what it requires, or you have no leads to search what you're looking for, and so on. And at that point, you have nothing left but to keep existing in the world, and explore it, in order to be able to follow the main path.

In this realistic depiction of events, you cant just control perfectly your adventure with total and supreme perception of everything in the game, and that means that you wont be able to tell whats a true independent "distraction", from what things actually WILL help you for the main story. This technique if done well basically renders side quests as something you never know if they are just side quest, or purely "optional", and so you cant judge them as mere distractions from the main quest, because you dont even know how to proceed in the main thing anymore.

Blurring the line between side quests and main quests is something CDPR have talked about since february 2013, and like I said, based on what happened with TW1, and some examples of TW2, I think we can be as sure as possible before release, that too many "distractions" wont be a problem, because we wont perceive them as distractions.

 

[gogmeister777]

No, I don't feel that my experience with the main story will be threatened by optional side quests that are....er...optional.

My only concern about the main quest would be whether it's good enough to hold my interest for 50 hours, even if none of the other stuff were there. However, I've loved the Witcher world so far and trust CDPR.

So no, I have no concerns in this regard even if the Forbes article asked a reasonable enough question. I have only one concern and hopefully it'll be addressed by CDPR at some point before release.

 

[soldiergeralt]

the forbes article is just another variation on the mainstream/casual position that games should be shorter and feature less content. it's irrational and contrived, and isn't the kind of worry most gamers are too preoccupied with since it has a very easy solution:don't play the side missions.

 

[Rawls]

I disagree that being concerned about narrative focus is just a mainstream/casual position. I spend time thinking about which mission I should do next (especially in the first play though when I refuse too look online for guidance) when the order you do missions in can have an effect on the content of the story. I am trying to role play Geralt of Rivia. And while the solution sometimes is to ignore the side content, that can be hard sometimes. I want a story that has excellent pacing with both moments where you feel compelled to push forward through the story and moments where you can breath and side quest to your hearts content. Wanting this balance is not "casual" at all. It's just a preference for excellent storytelling. Too many things on the side can get in the way. As an example, in AC:Black Flag I really liked the sea shanties you can collect. But it didn't really feel appropriate to be running around town trying to grab sheets of music when you are about to (or had just) killed someone. It's immersion breaking to an extent. The struggle between the game and the story is real at times in an open world. Just one man's opinion.

 

[Darth-Death]

Each Witcher game is open to an extent and the story worked just fine. With the Witcher 3, it's a realization achieved by the red engine 3. I believed if CDPR had the resources back then, both W1 & W2 environments would've been more open. Ultimately, it's up to the player if they want to get distracted or not.

 

[Garrison72]

This has always been the biggest concern: can they pull off a rich narrative in an open world. We have yet to see.