http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/artikel/the_witcher_3_wild_hunt,49062,3082308,3.html
All the problems with story and quest pacing and direction in open world games (and "openly designed games") compressed in one little quest from the very beginning of the game.
---------- Updated at 08:17 PM ----------
Yes, but there is a certain mistake in comparing the short stories in the books with quests in an openly designed games. 'A book is always a 100% predefined story, carefully composed around "interesting" actions, encounters and dialogues. They are enjoyable because of this perfectly executed and predefined composition.
That's imo fundamentally different to a game in which you can do "everything". So the problem I have with open world is not the possiblity to do "traditional" witcher quests like monster hunting. I think stuff like that can be interesting just like it is interesting in the short stories. The different - and problem - is the freedom.
I very strongly disagree. This is only ONE form of immersion. People actually have at least two different ways to feel empathy in games and therefore immersion: being and caring. Roleplaying in your own mind is usually attributed to the former. Personally, I'm much more influenced by the latter one. I'm not Geralt but I care about him. I try to keep him alive and "dirigate" him through his story. But I don't really roleplay anything in my own mind. That's probably the reason why I can't fully enjoy sandbox gameplay and games like Skyrim in which people usually tell that they "make their own stories". That's not how I play games in general, and RPGs in particular. I play games like that to follow a certain storyline but with interactive elements. That's why I loved the previous Witcher games. They concentrated on storytelling with gameplay always strongly connnected to quest and the overall plot. Freedom was limited and I've enjoyed that. So while you probably enjoy that typical open world feeling because it caters to your "being" interest, I fear it because it possibly takes away from my "caring" interest...
Last edited:
@Scholdarr I agree, I'm not into roleplaying a character, I'm much happier with great storytelling and well conceived gameplay and quest design. I had also lot of the same concerns when I heard this game was moving into an open world, since so many other games of this type really de-emphasied a proper storytelling in favor of ,as you put it, "making your story".
However, based on the recent impressions and the things they've said it I feel much better about the move to an open world. It seems that CDPR is totally aware of the issues with story telling in open world games. They are using instancing, locking off areas until the story allows it, some quests even change depending on the order you complete them in, ect. I can't say I've seen/heard of any usual "open world jank" to be concerned about.
However, based on the recent impressions and the things they've said it I feel much better about the move to an open world. It seems that CDPR is totally aware of the issues with story telling in open world games. They are using instancing, locking off areas until the story allows it, some quests even change depending on the order you complete them in, ect. I can't say I've seen/heard of any usual "open world jank" to be concerned about.
I kind of like the mix of roleplaying and predefined story.
That's definitely one of the reasons I find The Witcher so appealing.
On the one hand the story is defined enough to entertain you and complex enough to keep you paying attention.
On the other hand the game world is lively enough to let you indeed make your own story if you do side missions or monster contracts.
It's the perfect mix.
As for the Griffin quest, you can not possibly avoid that in an open world game. If you want to force the player to go after the Griffin immediately, sure, but most hardcore fans will do this anyway and I do not think people would purposefully break their immersion by speeding up time. To be fair I think the same could have happened in one of the regions in TW2 would there have been such a monster. The only difference is that TW3 is MORE open.
I can start a boss-fight with a queen Endrega then leave do another quest and come back afterwards to see her just waiting for me.
That's definitely one of the reasons I find The Witcher so appealing.
On the one hand the story is defined enough to entertain you and complex enough to keep you paying attention.
On the other hand the game world is lively enough to let you indeed make your own story if you do side missions or monster contracts.
It's the perfect mix.
As for the Griffin quest, you can not possibly avoid that in an open world game. If you want to force the player to go after the Griffin immediately, sure, but most hardcore fans will do this anyway and I do not think people would purposefully break their immersion by speeding up time. To be fair I think the same could have happened in one of the regions in TW2 would there have been such a monster. The only difference is that TW3 is MORE open.
I can start a boss-fight with a queen Endrega then leave do another quest and come back afterwards to see her just waiting for me.
@BlackWolf500 And you can "meditate" for a couple of days, as the battle for the La Valette castle continues as well 
In these cases, it really is up to the player. It's not just about the open-world.
In these cases, it really is up to the player. It's not just about the open-world.Many people think that a game can ONLY be called open world if there is no loading screen.
Which is baffling because that is merely a technical detail.
Open world,to me, implies that the game gives the player considerable freedom of progression and exploration.
Big or small,partitioned into zones or completely seamless doesn't matter to me.
I think Witcher 2 was open world(minus epilogue and prologue),because you had utmost freedom of exploration and quest choice in each area you went to.
Which is baffling because that is merely a technical detail.
Open world,to me, implies that the game gives the player considerable freedom of progression and exploration.
Big or small,partitioned into zones or completely seamless doesn't matter to me.
I think Witcher 2 was open world(minus epilogue and prologue),because you had utmost freedom of exploration and quest choice in each area you went to.
Last edited:
Ahem, I wouldn't call a game divided into acts and distinct levels for each act "open world"...
Witcher 2 was actually a typcical hub-based RPG. That doesn't mean that you have no freedom at all and it's clearly not a linear "corridor" game. But classic RPGs like Baldurs Gate 2 were basically the same and nobody really calls them "open world"....
Of course you can make your very own definitions for yourself but that's not how the majority of people use these terms and definitions.
Exactly.
The core difference between TW2 and an open world title is that the "acts" limit the time in which you can access a particular area until moving on to the next hub-area in a linear fashion (area A => area B => area C). Also hub areas are normally smaller in comparison with open world areas.
An example for another hub-based RPG with "hub-areas" is Deus Ex Human Revolution. Well, actually it's a hybrid of RPG, action and stealth game, but it also features multiple hub-areas that can only be accessed at certain points in the storyline and you can only access one hub at a time, you are not able to travel between hubs.
I believe the Griffin example is being able to meditate & heal while the griffin just waited around for you. In reality, if Geralt was to meditate for an hour lets say, the Griffin should not be there anymore, it should have flown off rather than waiting around to be killed.
There is the possibility this was an intentional part of the prologue/tutorial section, the point was to fight the Griffin as part of your training to learn the games combat mechanics before moving on to the open world.
CDPR have said on multiple occasions in the past that some quests may be timed, therefore inaction will lead to an outcome. Its possible post prologue Griffin encounters do not wait around for Geralt to catch up.
This is a game after all, bound by rules implemented by the developers, not every gameplay situation can be predicted.
Never tested it, but I'd wager in the Witcher 2 if you went to the bridge every hour of the day, the Troll would be there regardless of the time. That wouldn't make sense either, he would have to leave to eat, sleep etc.
You can pick at every game if you want to.
If that's the case, then I don't see why this "problem" is exclusive to open world games. Just like you said, this can happen in any linear game too, and in former Witcher ones at that.
Again, I don't understand how's this a bad thing which is "exclusive" for being open-world?(question to @Scholdarr). You can easily come across similar situations in W1 and W2 so how the heck does open-world takes away from your immersion for following the story? Are you being forced not to follow the main path? Is the living breathing world around you bothers you much?
edit: hah @eliharel beat me to it
Well it's was not Scholdarr's argument initially, he is on one side with us here saying and acknowledging that is happened in TW2 as well and therefore is not exclusive to open world games. At least that is how I understood it. The argument came from someone else some pages ago.Again, I don't understand how's this a bad thing which is "exclusive" for being open-world?(question to @Scholdarr). You can easily come across similar situations in W1 and W2 so how the heck does open-world takes away from your immersion for following the story? Are you being forced not to follow the main path? Is the living breathing world around you bothers you much?
edit: hah @eliharel beat me to it
Indeed. Of course the same can happen in linear games (at least if they offer some freedom). But the chance that it happens get bigger with more freedom. If you give the players more freedom the complexity of the quest structure and quest outcomes clearly rises. In a truly linear game '(like a typcial "corridor shooter", think CoD in SP) you can actually prevent that by scripting everything that happens, at least to a certain extend (if you actually play against the way the designer made the game you can as well "break" immersion, e.g. by just standing still without progressing...). In an open world game quest structure can easily become that complex that you simply have no chance as a designer to prevent immersion breaking by "unbelievable" situations, either due to financial or skill reasons. So you have to make compromises and the more freedom you give to players, very likely the bigger the compromises in terms of believablity and immersion.
Skyrim and the TES series in general for example was quite heavily criticized (especially by Witcher fans!) that the game lacks a serious choice and consequence system and that offen your choices don't have any meaningful (which means believable) consequences at all. Often the best consequence you get is someone giving you a one-line comment about some of your past actions. But does it for example have any real consequence
if you kill the emperor during an assassin quest?
In Witcher 3 they probably limit the open world by non-leveling enemies that prevent you from proceeding to areas which you shouldn't enter before a certain level (and therefore probably progression in the storyline). That's how Priranha Bytes traditionally limit their Gothic games back in the days and that's imo a way better way to create a story-driven RPG with an "open" level and quest design. But even if the complexity is smaller the basic problems stay the same. There will be smaller regions in which you'll probably be able to roam freely on a certain character level. Everything that you can do in this area is somehow connected, even a single quest like the Griffin one already is. If these smaller areas are bigger than those in Witcher 2 the chance is quite high that the immersion (in terms of quest design) will be lower. And then there is an additional problem Witcher 2 didn't have due to its act-structure: that you can go back to previous regions doing quests you're actually already "too strong" for (which is something open world can't really prevent). So even if the level-restricted regions are of a similar size to those in Witcher 2 the possiblity to visit "previous" regions automatically increases the complexity of the quest structure and design and makes the goal to create believable and immersive consequences a lot harder to reach no matter what. That's why I kind of "fear" open world. By giving players more and more freedom you automatically increase the workload for quest design and therefore the chance and probability that the consequences and outcomes of your personal way of progressing won't be that flashed out and believable. It's the DNA of open world games to put freedom (the player decides) above linearity (the designer decides). The problem with that is not freedom itself but the mere fact that storytelling in the classical way is always linear, at least to a certain extend. It's a narrative written by another person with basic plotlines, choices and consequences envisioned and implemented by another person and not the player. That's one of the reasons why Skyrim caters so well to those who like "telling their own stories". Open world games are by their very design made for such a player-driven approach. If you want to combine open world with a designer-driven (aka story-driven) approach you always have to fight. You have to invest an excessive amount of time to make them work together and the bigger and more complex your game gets the more you have to invest in not loosing your actual narrative between all the freedom you give the player...
You told this already with different words and we told you that this was THE challenge that CDPR's decided to face. So what's your point? Are you saying this is hard to make? or is it impossible to? To what end?
I read and watched a hundred interviews and they always talked about how have they been trying to do it/done it. What they said is believable to someone who's familiar with CDPR, yet it is also incredible(simply put: managing the content based on which order the player tackles them in a game this big) but this will redefine the RPG if successful, or it'll raise the bar significantly. Yes, we'll have to play and see but obviously most of us believe in them, which is why I think about the numerous times I'll play this game, each time with a different angle of approach to the story instead of thinking about the possibility of failure.
I read and watched a hundred interviews and they always talked about how have they been trying to do it/done it. What they said is believable to someone who's familiar with CDPR, yet it is also incredible(simply put: managing the content based on which order the player tackles them in a game this big) but this will redefine the RPG if successful, or it'll raise the bar significantly. Yes, we'll have to play and see but obviously most of us believe in them, which is why I think about the numerous times I'll play this game, each time with a different angle of approach to the story instead of thinking about the possibility of failure.
I was specifically answering to those who said that "that could happen in a linear game as well".
I don't believe anyone in the gaming industry. Not because I don't like them or because they have a bad track record but because the gaming industry is a too insecure and temporal business to justify any form of belief. So I rather talk about basic game design and how it works than believing in mere words or people who promise us to develop the jack-of-all-trades RPG. There WILL be compromises, you can be sure about that.
And the problem is not that I don't think they can do it better than Bethesda with Skyrim. I just think that open world isn't really suited for the goals CDPR has set for the Witcher franchise so far. So my biggest fear is that the story aspects won't be improved from Witcher 2 but tuned down in order to get open world and exploration. That's I compromise I personally don't value, sorry, and that's why I talk about it here.
I'm sure there will be compromises but again I'm sure they try not to compromise too much with deciding to start testing and polishing the feature complete game 6 months before release.
Can't argue with this. But I think, and got the feeling from the devs that this will be an improvement to the story aspects as well. Besides, yes the most important thing for them is story and we saw they've done it well in cRPGish environment then in action RPG environment and why not in open-world environment as well? CDPR's not known for "a type" of RPG game, they've made only two games mostly different from each other and they had to rewrite the engine in the first game and write their own engine in the second. Based on this I think they started W3 development easier than the first two games and we yet to see their full potential.
Surely, there are some narrative pitfalls that they'll have to be careful of in the open world, but it sounds like they are totally aware of them. Some of it, like the Griffin thing mentioned, just can't be avoided and that really just falls down to the player anyway.
Whats overlooked is that there are also some advantages to an open world. In the previous games you would only get to see the wider effects of your decisions as a blurb in the epilogue since each act moved on to an entirely new location. With the open world they've talked a lot about being able to return to the places and see the effect of decisions/deeds first hand.
Whats overlooked is that there are also some advantages to an open world. In the previous games you would only get to see the wider effects of your decisions as a blurb in the epilogue since each act moved on to an entirely new location. With the open world they've talked a lot about being able to return to the places and see the effect of decisions/deeds first hand.