TW3 Open World

[username_2064020]

Again, you're confusing the setting content with the story.

No, he isn't.
He actually has a better understanding than you about the topic, as you seem to think that in RPG story needs to be spoon-fed to you through explicit (and possibly cinematic) presentation.
He understands that in a *game* what actually matters is what you do, not what you see. That's why it's a game, not a movie or a a visual novel.

Beside, if you weren't so obfuscate by pretty cutscenes or whatever floats your boat, you would notice that games like Ultima V, VI or VII had at least as much (if not more) branching plots, clashing characters, complex dialogue trees than Witcher games, even if just in form of text.
This, with the relevant difference than in Ultima VII you could go around interacting pretty much just with unique characters (dozens if not hundreds of them), with plenty of unique dialogue options and story interactions to offer; things that created a genuine sense of immersion in a virtual world.
Hell, there were even characters that used to tell you different things according to who else was around at the time.

In TW and (even more) in TW2 you had instead just a handful of relevant characters in a world otherwise filled with wandering nameless and useless NPCs.
Roaming for Floatsom wasn't really much more than looking at a pretty background having hardly anything to do, beside a bunch of fairly simple quests. Even interactions with relevant characters were quite limited. You had a set of strictly defined things you could do or say with any NPC.
You didn't steal, you didn't explore, climb, sneak or jump to reach secret places. You didn't dive in the lives of these people, not even at a superficial level.

Try to compare it with roaming for Khorinos in Gothic 2 Gold. A town every bit as small as Floatsom, if not even smaller, and yet far more lively, filled with actual game content.
People to talk to, to beat, intimidate, to work for; guarded treasures to steal, factions to join, secrets to spot, and so on.
And I'm not even talking about random generic stuff like in Oblivion or Skyrim, where freedom came at cost of unique content; I'm referring to NPCs who noticed your actions and reacted accordingly, I'm talking about Artisans who picked or rejected you as an apprentice according to what you did, I'm talking about quests that could be solved in different ways not through "pick a dialogue option" but through "Choose how to *act*", I'm talking about trainers who offered you their services if you were on their faction, and so on.

I'm not here to shit on The Witcher, I wouldn't be on this forum if I didn't like the games to some extent, but I know that there is a lot of room for improvement because I *already* played a lot of games that did better in a lot of areas, so I find just *depressing* that so many people try to argue for "Please developers, do as little as possible, stick to the plot and nothing else, I want a linear, focused story because I enjoy movies more than games".

Your idea of what makes a good "story-focused game" it's apparently also my idea of what makes a terrible RPG, no matter how good the main plot can be.

And please, everyone, let's stop pretending that "open world" is a weird, fringe branch of the RPG genre. Openness is actually the natural state of things for the genre.
Linear RPGs focused on presentation over substance, mostly made popular in recent years by Bioware since KOTOR, are actually the fringe stuff in the genre.

 

[FoggyFishburne]

Personally, I have faith in Red. So much so that I don't even doubt that they can offer a huge world for us to explore and at the same time create an immersive and engaging story that will move me to tears. It makes sense thematically, or rather when it comes to genre. The open ended nature of the story along with the non-linear choices we've been given corresponds perfectly well with an open world gameplay setting. It makes sense and although this is Reds first open world game, they have already dabbled in the design. At least sorta. Both TW1 and 2 has some pretty big areas for you to explore. I mean come on, TW1s hubs were massive, and mostly of sound design. TW2 also felt huge, especially chapter 2 in the Pontar Valley.

I trust Red. I believe they'll make an incredible game. Though I do still share the concerns of those who are sceptical. Honestly, I'm not the biggest fan of open world games. They have a tendency to jerk the player around and you end up just meandering around, wasting your time looking for something fun to do. It's boring game design and I hate it. But, when it's done well, then it truly is a thrill. Morrowind, Skyrim, Fallout 3. They had fun settings and it was great to just roam the world, exploring caves, dungeons and cities. It was fun. And looking at the Witcher games as of now, I believe Red can match that level of awesomeness, or maybe even exceed it.

I'm overly optimistic, but Red has really impressed the shit out of me lately so I feel like I'm merely giving credit where credit is due. I'm looking forward to seeing how TW3 ends up in regards to the open world background

 

[CostinRaz]

I'd say I am cautious about it, but I have played open world games with great stories, the problem however is always in the pacing of it.

However CDPR has claimed that if you decide to go of on your and do your own while ignoring the story there will be consequences, that's nice actually.

 

[Zanderat]

However CDPR has claimed that if you decide to go of on your and do your own while ignoring the story there will be consequences, that's nice actually.

Missed that. Hopefully, they carry it out to its logical extreme, as in "game over Nilfgaard wins. Yennefer and Triss are both dead"....... if you spend too much time dungeon diving.

 

[Maerd.298]

Missed that. Hopefully, they carry it out to its logical extreme, as in "game over Nilfgaard wins. Yennefer and Triss are both dead"....... if you spend too much time dungeon diving. />

That would work but then gamers will complain that devs put players on timer. Many people hate timed quests. There were thousands of complaints right after Fallout 1 that there was a limit on how many days you have to find the water chip before your vault is doomed even though it was a huge amount of time. And Fallout 1 IS the best CRPG of all time for me in modern/futuristic setting but many couldn't stand it only for the timer.

 

[Chewin3]

Missed that. Hopefully, they carry it out to its logical extreme, as in "game over Nilfgaard wins. Yennefer and Triss are both dead"....... if you spend too much time dungeon diving. />

Well I certainly don't hope a "game over" is the only way for a Nilgaardian victory. That would be quite frankly stupid.

 

[username_2064020]

Missed that. Hopefully, they carry it out to its logical extreme, as in "game over Nilfgaard wins. Yennefer and Triss are both dead"....... if you spend too much time dungeon diving. />

Time-sensitive quests can add a lot, but in my opinion they work fine when they are just limited to minor/secondary events.
Putting a countdown on the overarching plot and factually limiting how much time you can spend in the whole game doesn't strike me as a great idea.
It was an extremely unpopular decision in Fallout 1, for example.

 

[dragonbird]

I'd prefer sequence-dependent quests rather than time-dependent, especially on the main quest line. If they're allowing freedom to wander over the world, then you're going to get choices on where to go next. The situation that you'll find in each location will vary depending on the sequence you do them in.

 

[Aver]

I'd prefer sequence-dependent quests rather than time-dependent, especially on the main quest line. If they're allowing freedom to wander over the world, then you're going to get choices on where to go next. The situation that you'll find in each location will vary depending on the sequence you do them in.

I like when there is some time sensitivity in the games, but not too much. It feels artificial when every event waits for you. Especially quest like "He is poisoned, you have to hurry and find a cure" and then you go to different city, make a twenty side quests there, you spent months on traveling and when you come back with a cure to poisoned guy you hear "you made it just in time!".

I was really nice surprised when I found in DX:HR that if you spent too much time in office before first mission (this one with hostages) then when you get to the mission zone you will hear that hostages are already killed. Some time sensitivity adds realism to the game, but also it's good if player is aware that he is now running out of time. For example NPCs should suggest it by saying something like "If you won't get help soon enough then we will be overrun by Nilfgaardians!".

 

[Maerd.298]

I'd prefer sequence-dependent quests rather than time-dependent, especially on the main quest line. If they're allowing freedom to wander over the world, then you're going to get choices on where to go next. The situation that you'll find in each location will vary depending on the sequence you do them in.

Sequence dependance is impossible because that leads to factorial complexity (5 interdependent quests means 5! = 5*4*3*2*1 = 120 quest branches), I explained it in more details in my earlier post here few pages before.

 

[GuyNwah]

Sequence dependance is impossible because that leads to factorial complexity (5 interdependent quests means 5! = 5*4*3*2*1 = 120 quest branches), I explained it in more details in my earlier post here few pages before.

No; that is true only under the frankly useless assumption that the only means of expressing the interdependency of the quests is a complete script for every possible ordering.

First, even in an open world, not all orderings are possible; for any interesting set of quests there will be some that are prerequisite to others. Thus the base of the complexity of the open world is not all the quests but only those sets of quests that are interdependent among themselves and independent of other sets.

Second, not every ordering is a total ordering requiring a complete script. Most real quest orderings are partial orderings consisting of only those quests that are either prerequisite to a given quest or that condition the progress of that quest.

In short, I do not have to write 120 complete narratives to account for 5 quests; I will probably not have to write more than 20 partial narratives and limit and reconcile them in a way that does not allow any orderings inconsistent with my purpose.

Thus the number of orderings that must be scripted is not factorial but polynomial in a degree that is the order of the average tree of interdependent quests, and the number of those orderings that escalate to anything even close to a total ordering is small, so there is no factorial explosion of narrative in real open world scripting but only in the most farfetched straw man.

 

[Sirnaq]

That would work but then gamers will complain that devs put players on timer. Many people hate timed quests. There were thousands of complaints right after Fallout 1 that there was a limit on how many days you have to find the water chip before your vault is doomed even though it was a huge amount of time. And Fallout 1 IS the best CRPG of all time for me in modern/futuristic setting but many couldn't stand it only for the timer.

The difference is that consequence in fallout when you disregard whole chip quest was Game Over, while cdpr preparing for us some other consequences. Wandering if they put something like in fallout 2 that when you Finnish main quest you can roam freely to end some unfinished business.

 

[Maerd.298]

No; that is true only under the frankly useless assumption that the only means of expressing the interdependency of the quests is a complete script for every possible ordering.

First, even in an open world, not all orderings are possible; for any interesting set of quests there will be some that are prerequisite to others. Thus the base of the complexity of the open world is not all the quests but only those sets of quests that are interdependent among themselves and independent of other sets.

Second, not every ordering is a total ordering requiring a complete script. Most real quest orderings are partial orderings consisting of only those quests that are either prerequisite to a given quest or that condition the progress of that quest.

If one is prerequisite to the other then they're not sequentially dependent quests, they are then essentially the same quest part 2,3,4, etc. I'm not talking about those type of quests. You can definitely start cutting corners and squeeze less quest branches out of hundreds but that's a very hard work (because you still have to have a think about all those possibilities in your mind) and then you'll get, for instance, 30 instead of 120 but it's still too much. And it will be very easy to make a huge mistake. For example, in TW2 in the beginning of the chapter 2 you can completely break the flow of the story if you don't speak to Dethmold first and start questing. You'll see how Geralt discusses things he doesn't know yet and make clairvoyant statements. That's interdependency for you. I ran into that on my first run and I thought that the game was completely broken until I replayed it as it was envisioned by scenario.

 

[ReptilePZ]

I do believe there is a way to pull off a great story in an Open World game. Let's look at what we know: The devs are aware of the problems with the storyline games such as Skyrim have. They've made 2 games that were very much focused on the plot and characters. Enemies won't scale to the player's level. CDPR have also pointed out that abandoning a storyline will be possible but with consequences. Another thing that they've told us is that Chapters will not be in the game.

The way I see it, these consequences will act as a new, more flexible type of a chapter. You want to skip the story in your current area and wish to move on to the next one? OK, go ahead, but you're essentially skipping over a chapter so whatever you could have prevented from happening is now going to happen. Oh, and guess what, you can't go too far off because your level isn't high enough to deal with the "content" over there. You can try - it's an open world and if you somehow manage to succeed to get to the end without doing the rest of the plot, you're probably not going to be too happy with the finale due to all the areas you skipped. In essence, I believe they'll use some of the game mechanics and plot to restrict the open world in a logical way that doesn't feel too contrived. Think the journey from Kaer Morhen to Vizima in The Witcher 1 without the journey being a cutscene. If you choose to skip Vizima, you can't prevent Salamandra's plans and what almost happens with Foltest in the cutscene after the end of TW1. Then what happens in The Witcher 2 is obviously affected by that choice. Clearly if they used a similar system in TW3, the effect the skipped area has on the rest of the plot is not that drastic.

I have a feeling CDPR are going to use a similar system to "guide" the player in the right direction and keep them from messing too much with the narrative. TW3's probably going to end up being a game that encourages exploration to a certain point but doesn't let the player ignore the plot without ramifications. And I'm going to be perfectly happy if that's the case - an open world game with enough restrictions to make sure it doesn't turn into a sandbox. It's going to be really tough to pull of but if they manage to do it, this could result in truly being the ultimate Witcher game. And I'm ok with taking the risk, even if it doesn't work, because the outcome can be something wonderful and unique.

CDPR, take your time with the game, delay it if you feel like the game's not ready by 2014, try to deliver the best Witcher experience possible and do have fun while you're at it />/>/>

In the end, even if you fail to deliver, you'll still have my support for trying and for making some of the best RPGs ever.

 

[Blothulfur]

I'm sorry but anyone who states that the narrative and setting of the Ultima game was totally seperated is talking hogwash, each setting positively overflowed with references to what you were doing, reaction to your choices and the narrative was tightly bound to to the setting. There was no seperation there, just as Gargoyles arose to attack the shrines of the virtues in Ultima 6, so the narrative was symbiotically bound to that struggle. Certainly there were not just one or two quests to complete before finishing the game, anybody who says there were has never played them and is lying. Could you complete the game quickly using exploits and meta knowledge, yes the same as you could complete the Witcher 2 or the weak story and themes of the Baldurs Gate game.

Fallout: New Vegas' narrative was also intricately bound to the setting, with more reactivity than most games can dream of. Caesars Legion was a totally viable idea, how much of our modern world is still shaped by the dream of Rome, whether it's a triumphal arch in many great capital cities of the world or governments formed around senates and governors, or rulers taking the name of Tzar.

The Witcher game are acknowledged as the masters of narrative and plotting there's no argument there, with maybe the exception of Obsidian as a worthy rival, certainly they shame the formulaic, illogical and pathetic plots of Bioware, but so would an infant with crayons. Their first game was pleasingly open during act two and onwards, so i'm hopeful that they can replicate this on a larger scale.