Well we can agree to disagree. I tried F: NV and I got bored of the open wilderness and quit the game a couple of hours in. I've never seen an open world game that had a good story and I've played MANY of them. Did I enjoy some of these games? Yeah sure but not anywhere near the level that I enjoyed TW2 where each piece of the environment was lovingly designed.Volsung said:
While I understand the skepticism since many open-world games sacrifice story in order to achieve that openness, this is CDPR we're talking about. The last two games were always about the story above all else. It's not that it isn't doable, so much as it is about companies not wanting to do what it takes to combine the two. CDPR doesn't have a publisher forcing unnecessary elements into their games or pushing them on release dates, so I don't see them cutting corners or wasting resources like what has happened with Bioware, for example. Based on what they've said about how Redengine 3 is designed for the purpose of giving the players a good story in an open-world and how traditionally devs have chosen one or the other, it sure sounds like CDPR is quite aware of the difficulty of the task ahead of them. And if I had guess at which would win out, story or the open-world, I think the story will win. They know that is why most people play The Witcher games, and given what happened with ME3, I'm sure they are quite aware of what can happen when the story takes a backseat.
I have faith in CDPR, I mean from the details so far they have already talked about how there's different story elements throughout regions and how they will intertwine, affecting others, etc.
As far as not being done, I think the Gothic games did it fairly good in terms of open world + story and characters, a lot better then TES games do.
Red Dead Redemption is also an example of a decent storyline set in an open world game.
As far as not being done, I think the Gothic games did it fairly good in terms of open world + story and characters, a lot better then TES games do.
Red Dead Redemption is also an example of a decent storyline set in an open world game.
I'm thrilled, but then I don't moan about TES's storytelling either because I view the games as lore-driven and the lore is fantastic. So add that to the micro-storytelling in the world and in-game books, and I don't even know what people are talking about when they say Bethesda has poor writing.
As for the announcement on TW3, I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with these lofty design ambitions.
As for the announcement on TW3, I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with these lofty design ambitions.
while I agree the act structure tends to help keeping a nice story arc together, I can imagine that this can be achieved by other means as well ("gently" directing the player by having way-over-his-head foes facing him when he strays into an area he's not ready for, as an example).LOLinc said:
One beef I always had with acts is that with every act complete, I get annoyed for it being already over / only so many acts left / etc. So while I appreciate it as a story telling tool, I kind of dislike it from a game play perspective. If that makes any sense.
What I'd like to see is for them to take the good things from act-based and combine them with the good things from open world/non-linear.
So I'd prefer it if the main quest is still mainly hub-based, with quest tasks that stay within the hub until it's time to move on. I'd also like to have some flexibility in the sequence of main quests, where it makes sense from the story perspective, and with consequences (i.e. if you do decide to do A then B, the outcome may be significantly different to choosing B then A). And I'd like the choice of going back to old locations, for unfinished sidequests, or something I missed, or even just to stock on body-parts from monsters that were native to that region.
I can see the possibilities of enhancing the story by making it open world, as long as they don't forget about all of the reasons why act-based is good.
So I'd prefer it if the main quest is still mainly hub-based, with quest tasks that stay within the hub until it's time to move on. I'd also like to have some flexibility in the sequence of main quests, where it makes sense from the story perspective, and with consequences (i.e. if you do decide to do A then B, the outcome may be significantly different to choosing B then A). And I'd like the choice of going back to old locations, for unfinished sidequests, or something I missed, or even just to stock on body-parts from monsters that were native to that region.
I can see the possibilities of enhancing the story by making it open world, as long as they don't forget about all of the reasons why act-based is good.
These are all inappropriate examples because neither of these games, except Krondor, have a story. Ultima games have a setting and bunch of mostly non-connected quests, some of which are story related but independent quests. I rather recently played fan based Ultima 4 recreation on Dungeon Siege engine and I haven't noticed there any story worth mentioning, it was rather a game without a story.Blothulfur said:
What story have you found in Fallout: New Vegas? There is none. That rudiment of a story can be fully described in one small paragraph. Again, it's a sandbox setting full of good but mostly independent quests. It's a good game, but it's a good sandbox game, not a story based game.
Betrayal at Krondor had so primitive graphics that is was almost a text based game, so, open world was rather schematic. Another thing, you didn't have there hundreds of non-story related NPCs to interact to, you could only interact with someone important in one way or another. You can do it in the Witcher too if you put just two people in a whole city to interact with. And that's not what you want, is it?
The good old example of the story driven game is Planescape: Torment. Did it have open world setting? No. Did it have one of the best stories ever? Hell yeah!
Story driven and open world games are mutually exclusive. And it's not about developers of Bethesda or CDPR are bad or good. It's because a story in the open world gets factorial complexity if you allow intertwined consequences and any order of execution. It's just a pure math, try to draw the graph of choices and consequences that dependent on each other in let's say 10 locations and you'll realize that to implement it would be practically impossible. Let's say we have just 5 quests, where order of execution of any of them matters for each other. Doesn't look scary, eh? Now, for each of these 5 quests we'll have 4 consequences in related quests and out of other 4 we have a set of 3 separate consequences of each combinations of the first two and so on... Now, to handle these 5 quests the developers have to deal with 5*4*3*2*1 = 120 quest branches. Does it look easy now? Not really.
I am somewhat skeptical but i'm hopeful. I always though that New Vegas was really great game with a great story and characters. and the problems that they had had to do with the limitations that the studio had to work with. ( like time limits and the engine)
Does that mean it had a simple plot? no because alot of things happened in between. the same applied in NV.
I disagree, The witcher 2 can be summarized as "Geralt hunting down for an assasin."
Does that mean it had a simple plot? no because alot of things happened in between. the same applied in NV.
/>Not saying open world is an new concept in general, mate. The concept is new for the Witcher series. I don't care about Yahtzee and dice rolls, I want to ride the open glades, and travel from dells to mountains hunting monsters, or putz around with Triss on horseback, and then go sailing and bang on the boat...yeah. I love the Witcher books, I love the Witcher games, and I would love to see this world on a grander, more lively scale. I am willing to let these good folk do what they want to with the game- they're taking a risk, and maybe it will pay off, or maybe it won't. Time will tell, but it's unfair to assume that the game is definitely going to suck.Greenei said:
Actually, let me tell you a reason why someone would roll again in Yahtzee even if they have [6 6 6 6 4]. It's because you are badass, and want to show how badass you can be, and if the stars align and it actually comes out that you do end up rolling all 6s, then you go down as that badass that could. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, my friend.
I am joking around, but seriously, it's not worth the time or energy to make assumptions based on nothing.
In addition I also reckon it relates to the completionist attitude within some gamers. Open world games with lots of side questing are an enemy to completionists looking for a streamlined, "perfect" playthrough. They tend to get side quests out of the way before continuing with the main (story) quest. In an open world scenario, it is too easy to get lost in side questing, venturing to the ends of the earth just to make sure no stone is left un-turned - to ensure every secondary objective in their journal is tick off.
Too much side-tracking can lose story focus and urgency.
Too much side-tracking can lose story focus and urgency.
Beside the fact that as far as I'm aware of, there are only Dungeon Siege remakes of Ultima V and VI, not IV, I strongly disagree.Maerd said:
Ultima games, from the fourth to the last chapters, have always been very story-heavy, both in terms of plot or in terms of unique characters, dialogues, and overall NPC interaction.
Just because the story isn't told as an "in-you-face cinematic experience with tons of cutscenes" (which by the way is a trend I fiercely despise in RPGs) that doesn't make its presence any less relevant.
In fact I woul argue that there is far more story and NPC interactions in Ultima, Gothic or in Fallout 1-2 than in both The Witcher games.