I made this map, if someone want and have account on Neogaf can post it:
Posted it. I doubt it will quench the 'pre-order cancelled' talk as people rarely bother to read the replies to the thread.
Posted it. I doubt it will quench the 'pre-order cancelled' talk as people rarely bother to read the replies to the thread.
I made this map, if someone want and have account on Neogaf can post it:
Not a bad one, but the Novigrad and NML square area is a bit small to what it represents in a game, if you want you can correct it a bit.
Attachments
-
206yhpw.jpg
No, we didn't know and we thought this was different, the information about three great maps is mostly new. CDPR itself said many times the game was an open world three times skyrim, 35% bigger or in other information 70% bigger, that's why all the discussion in this forums and internet about the map size.
Sorry but some websites are saying DAI is bigger than The Witcher 3, and DAI has different regions, more than 3 big regions. Its the same system. It's is open world, yes....... but it's not as big it was presented, at least not each region, it's really big when you think about them all together.
The term multi-region says nothing to me, most open world games are multi region, reality is multi region, separated world with loading screens are just different maps, different scenarios.
About if it's good or bad: it's bad for two reasons, first because it's worst than one open world as they anounced and let people think it was, second the fact they anounced that and let people think it was a big open world.
The "story world is too big, lets make three regions it's better" thing isn't really the reason and isn't really true. The are a lot of game with bigger maps and amazing graphics. And the "different areas is better than one giant blob of land" and the later being a "stupid design" has no sense. Tell that to the acclaimed best seller games (skyrim, GTA, Red dead redemption), people is asking for BIG maps, that's why CDPR designed the game like this, but the three maps part is because of consoles not handling it properly, i think........ other reasons wouldn't be better.
About "this world is more organic and looks more like you are there and is real" well........ first i don't think it's that much, i think it is better than any other game on gaming history about that aspect but not looking like the real thing and you can't know it for sure until you had played it. Did you play The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt?
Nonsense, CDPR has been saying for ages "multi-region open world" (A *very* quick google search gives June 2013 as an early usage, but that may not represent the first mention). Since the regions have been announced it has been made clear that Skellige and NML/Novigrad are joined by a loading screen.
If you got the impression that this wasn't the case it was purely by being unobservant, not because it was a secret.
In any case there is no way that the separate regions presented "fit together" in the context of the source world. To represent them using existing technologies *requires* the use of fast travel between the local areas of interest (or a lot of lame, generic filler terrain).
In many respects we actually use our "really open, real world" as a series of hubs with local attractions in any case (especially for the use of ferries, aircraft and train/bus/car)... where we are tightly constrained about 'practical routes' until we "arrive".
If you got the impression that this wasn't the case it was purely by being unobservant, not because it was a secret.
In any case there is no way that the separate regions presented "fit together" in the context of the source world. To represent them using existing technologies *requires* the use of fast travel between the local areas of interest (or a lot of lame, generic filler terrain).
In many respects we actually use our "really open, real world" as a series of hubs with local attractions in any case (especially for the use of ferries, aircraft and train/bus/car)... where we are tightly constrained about 'practical routes' until we "arrive".
Last edited:
Yeah, it's even written in big fat letters in the Debut Trailer from June 2013
I'm really surprised that after almost 2 years some people don't know how the world will work. I thought everybody who is even slighty interested in the game and spents his time on gaming forums would know by now that Skellige and Novigrad/velen are different regions seperated throught fast travel because of their distance. Each of the regions will have a open world design.(that's why the call it "multi-region open world") So it was clear from the beginning how the witcher open world will work and certainly not a secret.
Last edited:
What websites are saying that Dragon Age is larger? Dragon Age is broken up into a bunch of completely disconnected regions. Individually, they are small in terms of square miles and there is a very linear progression through them. The only method of travel between these regions is through the game's world map.
That is nothing like the Witcher which is made up of two very large land masses with an implied physical link. I also have no idea how a loading screen between Skellige and NML+Novigrad makes the world any smaller, anytime we've seen discussion of square miles its always been about the individual regions themselves.
I've read in one of the previews that the previewer got a vague impression by a quick glimpse of the map that it might be a bit smaller than Inquisition, and that's about it. But eh, so what. I really hope this won't become a dick-measuring contest. From my understanding Inquisition is huge. Even Skyrim-size is a challenge to fill with interesting material. The more bloated claims about the world size become, the more ambivalent I get. On one hand it's exciting and we all want it to be the greatest, bestest, yada yada, in every category. But on the other, I start to worry about filler content, repetitive landscape, diminished detail and a vast nothingness to ride through. Give me 20% smaller from Skyrim for all I care, but make it top notch.
We talked about it a hundred times. The distances that are displayed in this game are just way too big to actually make you travel through them. The decision which regions were taken had to be made from the story of the game itself and the lore (where does the Wild Hunt appear? Which path does it take? What happened in TW2 and how do we show it properly but without confronting new players too much with the stuff they didn't pay? How is the continent? Which regions didn't we visit yet? Which regions do we want to re-visit? Which climates are interesting and which areas could have interesting monsters?).
To make it just one giant blob of land would have meant having a LOT of water in between and an insane travel time between Skellige and Novigrad/NML. And let's be honest: It is ONE loading screen. Just A SINGLE ONE in the WHOLE GAME (aside from remote locations like Kear Morhen and White Orchard, etc). I mean come on.
I do really not understand the obsession with it being completely open world. Yes, GTAV for example had it. But I doubt GTA will come anywhere near the graphical quality of TW3, not even the nextgen version IMO, and it will also not come anywhere near the story complexity, NPC diversity and sheer variety of interactions and enter-able interiors.
Skyrim some of you say? Skyrim had a loading screen for EVERY interior and dungeon in the entire game. Not only that but the world itself looked like it was a miniature version of what you were told it is. Cities looking like small villages, villages having 3 or 4 houses, a hill being called a mountain. I mean seriously, whole countries/regions had the size of a big city. The diversity of landscapes was very low. CDProject Red said from the get-go they did NOT want to make the same mistakes Skyrim did. What they wanted to create was not the Skyrim style sandbox but a dense, living and breathing world with lots of non-repetitive content and realistic-proportioned locations.
And that what it always was. A little bit like Metal Gear Solid V, just without the HQ. Multi-Region Open World. By definition being an Open World (a world where you can travel wherever you want whenever you want and have quests and activities spread across all regions without a linear progression system and with lots of interesting places waiting for you to freely explore them, a world in which you can move in the world and interact with it on a level that you can basically go to whatever place you see with your eyes, a world without invisible walls (only visible ones (mountains, the ocean, war barricades maybe))) which is separated into multiple (huge) regions between which you can switch freely.
Sure, we can argue about that ONE loading screen, and lets not forget the loading screens when fast traveling (oh the horror), especially since it took SOOOO long to load in the demos when Geralt fast-traveled. I mean come on. We can depict the word "Open World" as long as we want and talk about different interpretations of it, but in the end you will have exactly what you expected to have, a world with almost no loading screens, except one when switching between the two main regions Skellige and Novigrad/NML and those you have when fast traveling. NO interior loading screens, NO dungeon or cave loading screens, NO loading screens when crossing the space between Novigrad and the Southeast end of NML on horseback. I do not understand why there is ANY reason to complain here.
Last edited:
Because gamers always complain. They usually hardly need a good reason. Give them A and they want B. Give them B and they want A. Give them A and B and they want C...
I learned this being "not completely open world" much later and have no obsession with it being this way, that said. I felt a bit down when I learned it simply cos of sandbox systems would not reach/connect with both maps. I mean I'd like to see let's say a travelling merchant cart, anywhere on the roads of the world if I cross paths with him but at this state I wouldn't be able to see that merchant cart from Skellige area, when I'm near Novigrad or Velen. But that was my initial feeling. Now I think both maps will have their own systems and maybe I could cross paths with a bounty hunter near the port of Skellige, who I'd first met at a brothel in Novigrad. I realized there is no reason for this hypothetical scenario not to happen.
The term "multi-region" doesn't mean different maps separated by loading screens, means multi = more than one, regions = zones, so you have different zones. World of warcraft, Lineage 2, Aion, Skyrim and almost every open world RPG are multi-region, is something logical since a world has many regions, with snow, forest, deserts.... maybe one country has only a few different regions with more similar aspects like is the case in the witcher 3 and this lands. This is multi - region, not specifically "separated maps with loading screens" that's just that, separated maps with loading screens.
For the "openworldness", no doubt, The Witcher 3 IS open world. You could say it is "two times open world" since some say that the two main regions have a size similar to skyrim, in the case they are smaller, they still are open world maps.
It's good to be like this? for me, no. It's reasonable? not that much to me because with only just one more map of the same size of the other two they could make the bridge between them and make it all in one. So to me it seems a technical decision based on hardware capabilities (consoles).
Any way we are getting a piece of art RPG with a huge open world, and besides the tastes of one masive or divided maps open world like DAI, is still awesome.
---------- Updated at 04:19 PM ----------
"gamers always complain" i'm sure that the fanboys that "never complain" in one side, complain in the other. And the A....B thing is an unbiased assumption like the rest of your comment.
This is a forum, forums are for discussions, people have different points of view and different ideas, telling some of them or being critic isn't complain, complain is what you do when you buy something and you don't get it and ask for refund or something, not being critic for good or for bad. CDPR said they listen to their community and make things better based on that a lot of times, so CDPR doesn't take criticism like "complains", that's a smart ideology.
If no body says something different, if no body disagree and have a critic about the game here..... then this would be a forum of one single thinking full of blind love and going just in one direction like a racing horse.....we all know how is called that.
I agree, there is no reason for that NOT to happen. You can have the same NPC on both maps at different times I think.
But on the other hand it makes sense that MOST people will not travel into the other region that often, considering the distance between them the only people traveling would probably be merchants, bounty hunters or mercenaries.
The question is "WHY isn't it good?" or why is it BAD?
Do you want a huge ocean where you'd travel 2 hours on a boat to get to the other region just for the sake of having no 5 seconds loading screen? I mean WHY? Why create such a huge and useless mass of water were not much can happen and you can not really do much (Witchers are not really made for water fights) for no apparent reason.
You might say "Well, they could also include the area that is next to Skellige and connects Skellige and NML on a geographical level. Sure. But why if the story does not NEED it? Why if there is no reason whatsoever to create this mass other than "there will be no loading screen then".
Also, it's not only consoles. People with a mid-budget PC will also have problems playing a game of this size if all 2 regions are connected without a loading screen. Lots of technical problems. Sure, they can downgrade the graphics to achieve it, but why? It is hard enough - I tell you - at the moment to buy a proper gaming rig that will play the games being released now (like TW3 or MGSV) on high settings with a stable framrate. The new cards might be more powerful than consoles in theory, but it will probably take another generation of cards (which will take at least 6 months) to acquire a card that can run such games on good settings for the next 2 - 3 years. It is a very, very difficult phase for a lot of PC gamers with a limited budget to be really save which hardware to buy so the games being released now can be ran without any problems. It's not only the consoles.
But beyond that, like I said before, there is just not enough REASONS to include such a huge mass of water just for the sake of having a loading screen. In fact, there is a huge amount of things speaking AGAINST such a decision
Last edited:
Absolutely, positively, 100%... NO. Hardware is NOT holding back TW3 from being a completely "seamless" open world.
It is a decision based on possibly a number of things (Level Scaling, Progression, Story, Lore/Realism - because it makes no sense that Skellige is just a bridge or 2 minute boat ride from the mainland of NML/Novigrad) but Hardware restrictions is not one of them.
However this has been stated multiple times in this thread (Like over & over & over), so I tend to get the feeling that you're either actively ignoring the perfectly logical comments made in regards to this, just to stick with your "Hardware Theory" or you somehow seem to be skipping over it. So hopefully this post has the point re-iterated enough that you might understand.
I googled "what does multi-region open world" mean, and I got a bunch of links to articles about Inquisition and how the developers repeatedly emphasized how they prefer the term multi-region open world, instead of open world.
The gaming industry has very few dictionary definitions. There's not one source you can go to which determines what each term means. In such a system, the definition of terms is based on custom and how people come to understand them over time. This isn't distorting the meaning, it's a natural development in any field, not just gaming.
Now, I haven't conducted a survey, but I bet that if we go and ask throughout many gaming communities, and BioWare and Bethesda in particular, what do they understand by "multi-region" open world, I'm imagining that they'll say the same thing as Mike Laidlaw about Inquisition. You can disagree, of course, since I don't have any proof that this will be the result. But even if you do, it comes down to how people and developers use the term (which, again, isn't bound to any professional dictionary). Do you disagree that at the moment it's used to describe game's that have Inquisition's and TW3's design?
I believe that this is a fact. If you want to argue whether it's right that these games are referred to as such, I'll stay away from the discussion, because I believe it's even less relevant than arguments about RPG definitions.
What map?
It's an ocean.
That takes two hours to sail across for the archipelago of Skellige.
I really had to make sure I read that bolded sentence properly. You want a map that amounts to two RL hours of sailing? Really? Just so you can say that it's all seamless? This is a reasonable expectation?
SageFox, I really think there's no 'engagement' on the issue here between you and the rest. So for the sake of trying to make some contact between our posts, let's take it question by question:
Do you want a map of an ocean that would take two hours IRL to cross?
If not, do you want a map of an "ocean" that takes five RL minutes to cross?
If so, do you think this harms the immersion less then stating IG how far these areas are from one another, and solving it with a loading screen?
Last edited:
I'll just say that this is not supposed to be just an open world game, its supposed to be a story based RPG with an open world, so what im saying is, the map, its size, its connections, those are very very far from being the priority. Story, consistency, believability, lore, and other aspects must take that open world and shape it however it seems convenient, whether that means making it 1 big map or 3 or 7.
For background reference - 2008 article on "Open World" games.
http://www.computerandvideogames.co...-complete-history-of-open-world-games-part-1/
It's clear from the article that the definition of open world was used to describe something that gave freedom to roam as opposed to linearity. No mention of loading screens anyway. But then when the phrase was first used, I suspect that the idea of NOT needing loading screens never crossed people's mind.
I don't think I've seen any suggestion that "open world" meant "no loading screens" until the last couple of months.
http://www.computerandvideogames.co...-complete-history-of-open-world-games-part-1/
It's clear from the article that the definition of open world was used to describe something that gave freedom to roam as opposed to linearity. No mention of loading screens anyway. But then when the phrase was first used, I suspect that the idea of NOT needing loading screens never crossed people's mind.
I don't think I've seen any suggestion that "open world" meant "no loading screens" until the last couple of months.
