Is it possible to have a open world and a good story?

[Journey_95]

Is it possible to have a open world and a good story?

I never asked for open world in TW 3 but we are getting it for better or worse

I just recently completed DA:I and damm did the story suffer because of the huge open world areas
it all felt so disconnected
Do you think its possible to have both? (open world and a good story?) Because I have yet to play such a game
maybe TW3 will be it

 

[Yellowcardus]

In DA:I you are the leader of the most prominent military faction in the country who tells every one of his minions what should be made, bought or done and who should be killed or spared, yet every now and again you will just run of somewhere and spend the day picking flowers. Because apparently that's not something you can outsource. By comparison I see no reason why going on a monster hunting binge in the middle of the search for Ciri should somehow detract from the story. Geralt needs money and killing monsters is his profession. Plus, sometimes it's hard to leave people to their certain death by a monster you could likely deal with for 50 Novigradian crowns.

Also , the most significant change in how the story is told in The Witcher 3 is probably tied to the player's freedom.

Previously you were unable to visit the area whose resident's you might have slaughtered in defense of a witch. Now you will be. This opens up new possibilities and allows for a really interesting form of storytelling. Simply showing and not telling. But of course, it also means more work for the developers.

In the end we can only guess, but I think - judging by the games recently showed prologue - that we're in for something quite awesome.

 

[moonknightgog]

Yes, it is. Except that Inquisition isn't an open world, New Vegas and Gothic teach us that an open world RPG can have a good main quest design.

 

[spacehamsterZH]

I suspect CDPR have had ideas on how to pull this off in terms of structure and writing for a long time and are just now getting around to doing it because they have the resources. If you look at the first two Witcher games, the exploration's there, they just couldn't go all-out with it and clearly decided if they were only going to be able to focus on one thing, story had to come first. So you get a largely linear story with a couple of oddities tossed in like the Bandit Hideout Key in TW2 that only makes sense if you explore an area that you otherwise have no reason to go to (and which I didn't even find in my first playthrough.)

I'm not a real big fan of open-world games because I like my games to have more forward momentum, story-driven or otherwise, but given that these guys have clearly always wanted to make a game like this, I'm optimistic. It can be done, it has been done before, and this is a developer who doesn't do things because everyone else is doing them, but because they believe they'll work.

 

[wazaa]

It is possible to have a good story? yes.

It is possible to make the world to have complete sense? no.

It will be way too big. Let's take Rome from one of the Assassins Creed series. There were generic characters doing nothing, with no life, no house, in a world with no real economy. Daily travel? weater? getting tired? to not die from starvation? to heal yourself? a game character is impossible in real life. People get hurt, tired, and have to do simple and very basic things as for example: go to the toilet.

And these limitations are not from Open World games. Are from ALL the games. Because games, are not to tell us a story, it is a secondary element, not present in all. Games are to be played

 

[moonknightgog]

It is possible to have a good story? yes.

It is possible to make the world to have complete sense? no.

It will be way too big. Let's take Rome from one of the Assassins Creed series. There were generic characters doing nothing, with no life, no house, in a world with no real economy. Daily travel? weater? getting tired? to not die from starvation? to heal yourself? a game character is impossible in real life. People get hurt, tired, and have to do simple and very basic things as for example: go to the toilet.

And these limitations are not from Open World games. Are from ALL the games. Because games, are not to tell us a story, it is a secondary element, not present in all. Games are to be played

Well, that is an Ubisoft fail. Even the architecture of Rome is completely wrong.

 

[turuzzusapatuttu]

I think DA:I can be considered a great game but I cannot deny it has many flaws: most of the areas are completely useless because they aren't tied to the main quests, so you go there just to loot or raise your lvl (talking about looting; such a terrible work they did) and complete fetch quests. You are supposed to be the leader of one of the most powerful organisation in the world, yet you cannot have good stuff to dress yourself or your companions. Geralt, instead, is on his own, and this justify the side quests.

 

[gregski]

Can we please not turn it into another "DA:I this, DA:I that" thread please? We're here to talk Witcher 3.

 

[Aes Sídhe]

The Witcher 2 has no peers, ergo neither does The Witcher 3, or show me the proof of valid comparison. The added genre description of "Open World" does not cut it.

Say those words and the vast majority think of one particular franchise which has three OW games built on the same engine with no serious attempt at improving the problems that engine had since game 1 of 3, or a recent failure added to a dying franchise that, like I say hasn't been a peer of The Witcher since TW1. Believe it or not there have been other OW games that themselves are not peers of the big 2 mentioned because the OW in them was distinctly differently handled (Gothics 1 & 2, Arx Fatalis, Elite ffs).

Stop thinking its going to be like what you've experienced already, because our experience of these things is very narrow, and the REDs well aware of the issues, very good at their jobs, and crucially proven masters of computer game narrative. That final point cannot be said about anyone else at this time.

 

[atomo17]

It is possible to have a good story? yes.

It is possible to make the world to have complete sense? no.

It will be way too big. Let's take Rome from one of the Assassins Creed series. There were generic characters doing nothing, with no life, no house, in a world with no real economy. Daily travel? weater? getting tired? to not die from starvation? to heal yourself? a game character is impossible in real life. People get hurt, tired, and have to do simple and very basic things as for example: go to the toilet.

And these limitations are not from Open World games. Are from ALL the games. Because games, are not to tell us a story, it is a secondary element, not present in all. Games are to be played

So what you're saying is... TW3 Open World will be a limiting experience because you found content in a different game, made by a different developer to be unsubstantial?

I think your problem is that you seemed to have already convinced yourself TW3 will just be another generic fantasy RPG crafted solely for the purpose of taking advantage of enamored gamers. It's not.

Comparing The Witcher to games like Assassin's Creed/Far Cry is like comparing a cheeseburger you made yourself to fast food.

 

[thislsmadness]

Sure you can. You can tell a good story within the "confines" of any genre. Its more a matter of whether the developer is capable of telling such a story and willing to devote resources to it. In the case of CDPR, I don't worry about either of those.

 

[greySynapse]

I never asked for open world in TW 3 but we are getting it for better or worse

I just recently completed DA:I and damm did the story suffer because of the huge open world areas
it all felt so disconnected
Do you think its possible to have both? (open world and a good story?) Because I have yet to play such a game
maybe TW3 will be it

I think a tricky answer is required.

You say "a good story" in singular tense. In which case I'd say it would be possible but very difficult to combine an open world experience with a single primary story without the feeling of disconnect if you're traveling long distances between points in the primary story.

My solution and opinion is that you must create smaller stories which overlap the primary story that are also good and interesting. They can either supplement the primary story or be self-contained short stories themselves--side quests essentially--which do not completely distract the player but offer something to experience within the theme of the game (hunting unique monsters as an example) to make it feel more connected.

Distance between separate stories, shorter-story locations in the world in comparison to the primary story, time spent on each, world-themes, and story-type consistency across the world (what type of stories are they? head hunting? village in defense from foes? and how often do we see the same story type?) are all factors to consider as they affect how we might feel about the cohesion between the primary story and the open world areas.

My point is that I think you can create a good story in an open world, as long as there are plenty of shorter supporting stories that can help bear the weight of the primary story and possibly serve as reminders (in fun-form of course) when we move across huge regions.

I would probably be able to give you a more concise opinion if I've played DA:I, but alas I hope this is sufficient enough.

 

[atomo17]

I think DA:I can be considered a great game but I cannot deny it has many flaws: most of the areas are completely useless because they aren't tied to the main quests, so you go there just to loot or raise your lvl (talking about looting; such a terrible work they did) and complete fetch quests. You are supposed to be the leader of one of the most powerful organisation in the world, yet you cannot have good stuff to dress yourself or your companions. Geralt, instead, is on his own, and this justify the side quests.

How can a great game have so many flaws? I guess it could be considered "great" depending on your experience level with games. If you've never played a video game and picked up DA:I, you would be probably be blown away by it.

But as a person that has played RPGs before, it's easy to see that DA:I is a technical disaster. Aside from the (arguably)poor character acting/storyline/world design/typical fetch quests, the game was flawed from the beginning as the entire team of directors and artists were hired to fill positions in the production line. The CDPR team are a bunch of dorks like me that love the material they are working with.

At least this is the impression I get from them, and I find it sincere.

 

[frivolousam]

It is possible to have a good story? yes.

It is possible to make the world to have complete sense? no.

It will be way too big. Let's take Rome from one of the Assassins Creed series. There were generic characters doing nothing, with no life, no house, in a world with no real economy. Daily travel? weater? getting tired? to not die from starvation? to heal yourself? a game character is impossible in real life. People get hurt, tired, and have to do simple and very basic things as for example: go to the toilet.

And these limitations are not from Open World games. Are from ALL the games. Because games, are not to tell us a story, it is a secondary element, not present in all. Games are to be played

Well, you can't have the complete sense yet but Bethesda had daily routines for NPCs which helped with it, CDPR's making it(have made it) deeper than just daily routines with which some of those added to Skyrim with mods for realism/immersion. It will get better and better in time.

 

[wichat]

Games are not to tell stories but to be played ... in the same way that a book is not to tell stories but to be read.

It is an overwhelming logic, unless ... not everything is so white neither so black.

Luckily there are many genres of literature and video games, and some of them even tell stories and few are very good. What adds to the game a great incentive to be played.

 

[Blooddrunk]

Not sure why ES and Dragon Age are being brought up.

Red Dead Redemption is a good example on how it handles the plot, characters and open world that feels alive. And it's probably the only game that comes to my mind when i see Witcher 3 gameplay, which is a good thing.

 

[Phinnway]

I don't think having side-quests tell meaningful stories is as much of a problem as repetitive quest structure is. Having side-quests tell meaningful stories has always been a staple of The Witcher games. I don't think they would've made Witcher 3 open-world if they couldn't maintain the same level of quality.

Well, that is an Ubisoft fail. Even the architecture of Rome is completely wrong.

What?!? But Ubisoft told me Assassin's Creed is a historically accurate franchise. Are you saying they lied to me?


Trolling, just trolling. Carry on.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

I think having a meaningful story isn't so much a problem as avoiding repetitive side-quests is. Meaningful side-quests (in terms of story) has always been a staple of The Witcher games and I think Witcher 3 will continue to do the same. Otherwise they wouldn't have made it open-world.

They made it open-world because they like Skyrim and because "everyone likes Skyrim". Just read some early interviews...

I can't even articualate how sad this statement made me...

 

[shawn_kh]

Is it possible to have a open world and a good story? Yes
What is an example? Red Dead Redemption; one of the best and most emotionally impacting stories ever told.

The better question would be Is it possible to have an RPG and a good story ? It is very unlikely.
Why ? Because story really isn't the focus of the developer, and because of the fact that in a true RPG you create your own character that does not have any personality and s/he is not even voiced.

Do I consider Witcher to be an RPG? No.
Why? Because Geralt is a predefined character, and you cannot do whatever the fuck you wanna do in Witcher games. Witcher 1&2 were story driven semi-open world games where you made decisions, and Witcher 3 is a story driven open world game where you make decisions.
So I believe Witcher is more comparable to Red Dead Redemption than it is to Skyrim as far as story goes, even if it's an open world game.
I expect the story to be the strongest part of the Witcher 3.
I get the argument that Witcher games are RPGs, since you make decisions. But I say BULLSHIT.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Off-topic:

Spoiler

and because of the fact that in a true RPG you create your own character that does not have any personality and s/he is not even voiced.

"Fact"? Actually, you play a certain "role" in an RPG (not only video games). Traditionally "role" transfers to "class" or occupation but not to character. Nobody ever specified that you have to play yourself in an RPG or that you have to invent an own character. That's completely up to yourself, the ruleset of the RPG you're playing or the campaign/dungeon master (which in video games is usually the game developer)...

Of course you can define RPG for yourself however you want to. But don't sell it as a fact that everyone else had to adopt...