As a writer, I sometimes feel it would be better to create the world before deciding on either method. Create the world, the politics and the history and the legends and the towns/dungeons/encounters will fall into place.
They did an episode on why a writing-first method can have dire consequences for production. Personally I've found that developing lore and mechanics in tandem (which can be hard since it requires that you have skill in both writing and design) works best overall.
Deafmonkey21 Or, you just have a designer/writer team working very closely together. Developing lore and mechanics in tandem is *definitely* a smart way to go. That's probably why the video mentioned that more team communication is essential to creating a more holistic world experience.
I think this approach works well for D&D because you already have the mechanics filled out and set. You can houserule things or create your own classes/races/etc. but the core the game is already complete. With video games, that core mechanical expression of the game is not created.
1: Make world 2: Fill it up with things to do 3: Add main story This way it feels like the story is happening in a place rather than a place happening around a story.
I think why this doesn't happen, is that you'd throw a huge chunk of you budget into a project and would than have to ope that someone comes up with a gerat and fitting story that doesn't feel taged on.. might just be me
yeckiLP When I made campaigns in my old DnD days, that was actually the approach I would have used to make my campaigns. First I'd just make the geography, then I put stuff in it, towns, lairs, nests, interesting features, etc, made sure to give these places history, and thought about how they would interact with each other, if at all. This is most easily done by at least taking inspiration from already written stories, or adding the entire stories to your world, making adjustments when necessary so it all makes sense. THEN, finally I made the actual plot. The plot rarely came off as forced so long as I allowed it to make itself, rather than think about how things should progress every single time. Just add an element to your world, and see what happens. Think about how it will react to your world. What would happen as time progressed? How will the old relations be affected etc etc. Essentially I rode the wave of the logical next step in your world, and add in twists and character development where necessary. The problem with making the story first, is now that, no matter how hard you try, you're going to subconsciously bend the world around the story, and that's going to make it more linear and more bland than it ought to be, taking the exploration out of it. That's crippling for open-world games. You don't need to spend alot of budget going down a path that won't work. There's no animating or programming or scripting here. You just draw a map on grid paper, put stuff in it, and write a story (or take one). This is all stuff you can do in pre-planning. It all just takes time.
nsgamer22 That's exactly why WotC sells books that detail settings in D&D, along with actual adventure modules. They do the world-building for you (which for me, is a daunting task that I have never personally undertaken) so you can focus on making a story that fits. Baldur's Gate had this done for them as well; their game was set in Forgotten Realms, which is a pre-established D&D setting.
The ramp versus goblin camp bit. I have a slight argument for that. I mean ultimately yes you're right. But take for example one of my dad's favorite things to do in skyrim. There is this one particular forsworn camp he likes to terrorize. He sets himself up on the cliffs just within render distance of the camp and he snipes them with his bow. If he runs out of arrows he moves to a closer cliff that he can peek over and bait the forsworn into shooting at him. Then he'll duck down behind a rock and catch the arrow as it bounces off the cliff wall behind the rock he's hiding behind. He will literally do this for days. He'll mess around with the camp, wipe out all the forsworn, leave and do something else for a couple in game days, and then come back when he knows the camp is refilled again. So for him the forsworn camp is more like the ramp in your analogy, its a toy for him. He enjoys skyrim quite a bit more than I do for this reason.
Oh that reminds me of how tedious "stealth" combat was... shoot 1 arrow... hide and wait for enemies to drop aggro... repeat such a slow crawl Until you get enough stealth to walk up to enemies and just kill them with one hit with daggers...so silly
I'd say many rpg's have a big sandbox element to them.. It's really about exploring and playing with systems right? Skyrim's open world also invites the player to come up with goals that are very personal to them. Even if you'd technically not call it a sandbox, a lot can be learned from sandbox games when making rpg's with deep systems and enough complexity to play around with.
That is what damage overhauls are for. At least on pc. I loved the threat of getting hit by one stray arrow and dying, but the trade off of not having to do that shoot and wait nonsense was well worth it. I still did it, but when I did it was called for rather than just for the damage boost. In vanilla getting shot by an arrow wasn't a super big deal, however if I picked off one or two guys and their watchmen zeroed in on me you could die super easy.
Though this comment will likely be ignored, I can provide some great advise on this subject matter as to 'how' to design an open world. The biggest piece and most crucial advise I can give designers is that the human eye is great at grasping depth detail. Whether you realize it or not, either consciously or subconsciously, the human eye notices straight lines and curves, and extrapolates three-dimensional depth at a glance. Good level designers know this and intentionally make an effort to break up the terrain profile so that players are able to more easily gain immersion from their experiences. Assuming you don't try to break up the terrain and go with a '"flat" surface, the human eye will notice the straight lines and to some degree consciously avoid immersion into the game as an "artificial" experience. This; however, is not a mere matter of simply adding hills. The human eye also extrapolates a basic understanding of basic terrain concepts from real life experience. Adding hills without rocks, trees, grass, etc; to break up the profile will also have the same effect as noticing straight lines.
Bethesda actually does a really good job at making areas feel holistic. In skyrim, the areas with the autumn theme have custom trees, grass, plants, etc. Same applies to woods, meadows, dungeons, towns, snowy areas, mountains, caves, etc.
I really liked the Open World Design in the Gothic Series. They provided natural boundaries for the player by placing high-level enemies and ridges as well as cliffs.
6:10 - hearing the music again gave me shivers... This is beyond nostalgia, somehow a core bit of who I am has been defined by that series of games, and for that matter all of the previous titles from that developer.
Rotciv7777777 truth be told I think he's being too strict of differentiating to see the same rules pretty much apply. Even then just sticking to western example 3D action adventure platformers, assassin's creed, Kingdom's of Amalur and the witcher franchise are examples of the module philosophy working in an open world setting and that's before you get to Jrpgs.
The fact that different design philosophies is what underlies every design decision, and that the entire team should be on the same page regarding their chosen philosophy, is something that some studio bosses have a very hard time understanding. A project that I'm basically bailing out on (along with two other people, who feel similarly about it) is a great example of how little understanding of actual design methodology some companies tend to have. When I tried to get the boss on the same page, all I ever heard was "You're overcomplicating things." or "Now you're just quoting a game design book.". Why yes, yes I am doing both those things. It's sort of my job to communicate these minute, subtle decisions and problems to others... problems arise when they're not listening.
Have you guys talked about how to keep the overall story in the open world RPGs or sandbox games interesting? Because I find that to be the biggest issue where the side quests and lore of the game is much more interesting than the main game. Heck, it's my problem with games like Skyrim and Dragon's Dogma
IAmTheMikko I agree. I remember playing Dragon's Dogma and while I was having fun fighting giants and hopping ontop of griffins to kill them, I totally forgot the story and that there was one. Same with Kingdoms of Amalur and a majority of RPGs that have open ended gameplay.
i agree, but keep in mind that its much better than the alternative: a good story with a bunch of boring ass side quests that the devs wasted their time on that you will never do, when they couldv made the base game so much better just look at dragon age lol..
I love you guys. Seriously, your show teaches me so much about what I want to eventually do for a living. Thank you for being available as an educational tool that I feel actually applies to the career that I want to pursue.
"I've got to say, I'm looking forward to seeing a game crack the problem of providing modules, many adventures, and tiny cohesive stories in a seamless open-world design" = Breath of the Wild (2017)
As someone who is a bit of a self-professed aficionado of open-world RPGs, I actually much MUCH prefer the first mentality you talked about. A game doesn't feel like a true open-world if you constantly have to worry about "zones" or "realms", but more of a series of mini open-world games. Each part, just by it's very nature of being it's own mini universe, becomes slightly disjointed from the rest of the game universe. While I see your points when it comes to games like the elder scrolls series, they still feel far more open-world to me than something like baldur's gate or WoW, and thus I prefer them, even if they do suffer from potentially weaker regional identity or character development.
I look forward to seeing how Bioware handles the semi-open world in DAI, they definitely seems to be taking notes from the modular way of thinking. Great choice for the ending song, btw. One of my fav remixes.
5:40 i would say far cry 3 did the camps / outposts really well. i played with those heaps, seeing different ways to take them out, using different weapons or distraactions
+1wsx10 Best strat: have the best sniper availible at any given point, search for the highest spot near a camp with good vision, and headshot it clear. +1500 points, repeat 50 times more.
+1wsx10 Sure, they handled it well but the video makes a good point. You can't "play around" with it in the same way you can in GTA with ramps and shit. When approaching the outposts, you have a goal; Secure the outpost or sneak around/away from it. How you go about it may vary but in the end its kill them, let some animals kill them, or walk away. In contrast, Minecraft enemies can be killed, trapped, used as defenses for your base, slaughtered for items in horrible yet brilliant machinations, and so on. Also, I love Far Cry 3 and also Minecraft so I am unbiased!
+Mike Aruba in the video they mentioned the difference between a sandbox and an open world game. in a sandbox you make your own goals, and an open world you have goals set out for you. in far cry 3/4, aside from the story your mission is to liberate all the outposts similar to just cause. in minecraft there aren't really any goals. sure, you could say the goal is to survive but you can do that by leaving the computer. ok, turn the difficulty up then there is more required of you but you can still do that in a very boring manner. almost all of the features in that game are not required to complete the 'goal'
I like Far Cry 4 even better. You could take multiple approaches like Far Cry 3 but you also had a lot of emergent events. I'm about to rescue to some hostages who are walking with captors when an eagle attacks and does half of the job for me.
Videos like this are why I don't have notifications turned off for you. I just learned far more than I bargained for, in far more areas that I was seeking answers in than what I was searching for.
That whole "modules" thing reminded me of Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door. While you did have to go through the story one way and go through everything in order, every chapter did feel at least somewhat different and they all had their own mini story line, while all having a connection to the main story line. So maybe you could look at that game to see how to effectively make those mini story lines.
Another thing you didn't mention is that if you plan on making a good open world game, you want to add things to find that are worth finding regardless of whether they are central to the main plot or not. In fact it is required to have things worth finding that are completely outside the main plot because it allows the player the opportunity to strengthen their character if they feel they are not ready to complete the main story.
Hey James, I think that something like 70% of the quests should fall within their own thematic "module" while the other 30% of quests cross over into 2 or more modules to maintain the sense that the world is actually connected intrinsically and not simply a bunch of clearly defined modules placed next to each other.
It feels better to me when players have a hub overworld to go back to between quests. It's also great when levels conect together, so a game like Banjo-Tooie seems perfect, mostly using an overworld to move between levels, but with some puzzle connections between levels, especially involving the train stations.
There’s one game I’ve played which uses the patch method quite well. Mostly because it managed to just draw from its source material well. It’s the MMO Star Wars the Old Republic. The stories are generally contained in each planet. So it just used the fact that it’s in space, and you fly your ship from one to the other to get to the missions on each planet. Star Trek Online did the same thing, but it further incorporated the flying through space as an important element of its own, with space combat and exploration, so the missions usually start in space, then go to the planet, and come back to space.
If you're looking for a interesting take that combines open world, themed areas, and special stories for that area I recommend looking at the newest patch for Firefall that's leading into their release. Ever since they replaced Mark Kern, the new management has been making leaps and bounds. They managed to product more content in the last half a year then the last three years combined. I highly recommend giving it a look!
I actually do know how Bethesda does their open world games, and I love them all the more for it. It's also why I would argue their approach is better than the module based style of MMOs. Bethesda will have writers script out the main story and some important parts they want to get out, and begin plotting out the path through the wilderness at concept phase, while other teams are given free reign to start populating the cities with quests they want to make. One group will start working on stuff you know will be in all TES games for example, like the Daedric Artifact quests, while another will start populating quests into a given city, often having it go somewhere else. To me this approach makes the game more immersive, as module based gameplay tends to feel TOO centralized, and unrealistic. It also lends itself to encouraging exploration as you will sometimes go wondering off and find pieces of a quest before you have even started it. (This was done exceptionally well in Divinity: Original Sin) The lack of exploration is a plus for some people, but a major negative to me, and what I hated about most MMOs. You had clear objectives in central hubs, and would only go where directed. Something that GW2 did an outstanding job to remedy with secret areas, the 'jumping puzzles,' and loot stashes.
I recently took a class on game design, and I am now creating my own Indie Games. Though, they are very simple compared to other Indie Games. I took the class because I've always wanted to create games, and because I've been a fan of this show for a long time, and I wanted to use the knowledge I learned from these videos to help me create a game. Sadly, I can't. I also wanted to say how amazing it will be when every person I encounter has experience making a game. In an episode of Extra Credits, he said that not everyone who has an idea for a game, can just go ahed and make it. Well, I'll love the day when no matter the idea, you'll be able to make a game, no matter how complex, no matter who you are.
I guess it could be argued that the Elder Scrolls has done the second approach but just on a really large scale. Skyrim isn't a world, it's a unique part of the larger world.
Benete Silva What do you mean? They were talking about how designers could either create a world with different types of areas (forest vs town), or create a world with different styled areas (green forest vs winter forest). I'm saying Skyrim has a unique style, but it's still part of the larger world of Tamriel, just like how Morrowind has a different style because it's in a different part of Tamriel.
when people say "open-world" or "game world" they dont literally mean "world", as in, an entire planet. They are talking about the *setting* of the game, regardless if said setting is a country, a continet or whatever. You can't say: _"oh but if you consider the entire series than its the second approach because each game is set in a different place of the same world"_ because thats a given, pretty much *every* game series is like that.
Mount and Blade would be a good example of modulesque play within an open world, as there are clearly defined zones in the form of the different kingdoms and the environments they start out in. Each kingdom has its own quirks and mini quests, such as the various pretenders, differing styles of tournaments, as well as how they will interact with you given your past encounters with other members of their nation.
they are doing interesting with open world design inside of the next Legend of Zelda. I can't wait to see it. When it comes to dark souls 2, areas are sortof open world, but they hide astetics. Meaning in actual collision data of the game, there are several areas that collide when pieced together in a 3D scape. It isn't a bad design, it just makes map making confusing, but obviously a place torn to shreds by the Abyss would have some spacial distortion eh?
I'm not a dev or anything like that, I'm sort of a casual gamer. But I love watching extra credit, it gives logical explanation to games I play. Explaining stuff I never thought of in games like themes, I just play to play. Thanks for making me think more about the games I enjoy. :)
This seems like an artificial distinction. Dungeons and towns aren't simply plonked down randomly in Elder Scrolls games, they are made based on maps and lore. Morrowind in particular had distinct areas with narratives and dungeons that correlated inside it. I think the more meaningful distinction between TES and Baldur's Gate is that TES is entirely non-linear whereas Baldur's Gate is a lot more directed.
Agreed. I am 6 years late but this dude just loves his modules and likes a narrative given to him, as opposed to engaging the World as the narrative. ES will never module down their game the way he suggests, and thank god for that
I've missed the old Tibia mmo. It had a huge map with all kinds of dungeons scattered across it. And the best part of the mechanics was that if you die you lost your backpack with loot, gold and some of your gear. So if you were out exploring and found a cave the suspense really got to you. Because you didn't know what could be inside (or if you could get back out again).
When it comes to a well implemented open world my go-to example is still The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. That game felt more alive and unified than any other open world I have ever played because they didn't build it around the player. I love the fact that you have to choose between Morag Tong and Comona Tong guilds, and even at that you never rise to the top of any house or guild. Yea, to Vivec and Cassius, and Dagoth Ur I was the Nerevarine... but to everyone else I was that random dude piling dishes everywhere. Oblivion built too much around the character (I was Champion of Cyradil, leader of the fighter's guild, Mage's Guild, Thief's guild, AND Dark Brotherhood, as well as the divine crusader AND the god of madness.) And Skyrim was too built around the plot (Gotta take the dragon claw to the dragon shrine so I can kill the dragon priest and get the dragon staff which I can grade for the dragon key to open the dragon door to the dragon library so I can get the dragon cookbook and make myself a dragon brisket)
Eh, I think saturating the market with rings of waterbreathing made with wolf/deer /fox/rabbit souls and gold smelted from transmuted ore isn't exactly part of the plot of Skyrim. :P
All I'm saying is that everywhere you turn in Skyrim, everything was Dragons. Sometimes, I like to forget the plot of an Elder Scrolls game when I am exploring the world. Especially after I finish the main story. Once I killed Dagoth in Morrowind, everything else was about me in that world and the DLC was something different entirely.
I liked the random dragon encounters in skyrim, it made them feel like a part of the world instead of just boss battles. but yeah, the game was a little obsessed with them. i just wish i didn't find Morrowind so dull. not the world, that's amazing, but i came to it this year and the mechanics just feel a bit slow and unpolished for me to enjoy it.
The Elder Scrolls is my favorite game series exactly for its approach to open world design it feels a lot more immersive to me, that I don't run into loading screens all the time (although switching into an interior cell still has loading screens, which I hope will also become a thing of the past with the progress of technology), I think the world feels more organic, and even if the game doesn't provide toys like the mentioned example of a ramp in GTA, I think it becomes engaging in the way you can roleplay in such an environment, because I think roleplaying doesn't only come from dialogue choices, but also how you interact with your world. It can be as simple as how some people deliberately don't use the fast travel function in Oblivion and Skyrim.
I believe that DS1 is the better example, Lordran just feels like one cohesive world were everything is connected and while you do not see huge landmasses like in an Elder Scrolls game, there is not one single loading screen and I could actually draw a whole map if asked by memory. The place is so cohesive that it might be the only game I have not fast traveled. DS2 is more of a Zelda Majora's Mask type of world but without loading screens, were you travel to locations that feel so different from one another and it is not as cohesive, even then I think that majora's did a better job. Also in DS2 there are hidden loading screens, like the elevators that take you completely different areas, for some reason. DS1 is an small but extremely well crafted Open World. Well all of this is my opinion.
TheBasti82 Well to be fair, no Dark Souls game has been an Open World. It is more like connected levels. So they are linear in design and then they are connected through passages and shortcuts. DS2 adds Level-Barriers too, 40% of the game is blocked by the progress of the character, like Drangleic Castle, and the Symbol of the King areas, also the memories What in my opinion makes DS1 the closest to being an open world is not the accessibility, since you need to complete certain stages of the game to access them. Even with the closed areas in DS1, DS1 felt more like an open world to me than DS2, even when none of the two are open world, is how everything is connected making it feel like a real and cohesive world. Instead of going up on an elevator in the top of a tower, and ending on top of a sea of lava. Don't get me wrong I still love DS2, I am not of those that bash the game blindly, but that game has its issues.
Very relevant to the D&D campaign I am currently writing! I have gone for the module approach, but in an open world, which is quite typical of the D&D genre. That is, though the players are free to explore the whole world, I, the GM, will keep drawing them back to one particular area (or module) where the main storyline is happening.
I felt the areas in Skyrim were actually well distinguished , Riften(den of intrigue) was very thematically different from say, Windhelm (institutional racism-ville), or Winterhold. Different flora and fauna unique to the areas,Turf wars going on around Markarth, etc.
But the theme only characterized a few quests (forsworns, Riften), dialogues (racism) and how the place looked. It wasn't a full-blown story that encompassed the whole region in it, uniting a whole bunch of characters, dungeons and events. In TES games you never really feel like you "cleared" a region, you only did all the quests inside it, and that's because they aren't tied together into a story. That's what he was trying to say.
Dude, I stumbled onto your channel and I love it! You care so much and that passion comes out through your words. The reason most of us are here is because we want to be able to discuss video games in an academic approach and you bring us much closer to that future. Thank you for your work and dedication to your channel! Allons-y!
Hey James, as an indie game dev, this video is perfect for giving us vocabulary on how to communicate game design decisions, especially to industry/professional “noobs”. Thank you!
You have not mentioned GR: Wildlands, which I really liked in terms of how they solved the open world setting. There are zones there, and you can transit between them as you like in a seamless fashion. They designed it with a certain main goal for each zone and additional goodies like extra weapons to find which made you explore that given zone more only because you were hunting for a specific enemy / item. It was less of an exploration as Skyrim, since you more or less knew why you go there and where you will find it, yet it was kept interesting enough though the story so you sometimes invested in keeping in the zone just to shut down a certain villain. They solved it by inserting the story when you changed zones. You always had a dialogue explaining what is happening there and what you will need to advance in that zone. The zones were more or less at an equal difficulty, so you had no pressure to finish one before moving to another. It really felt like you are in 1 enormous map where you are free to go wherever you want. Of course the game was slightly easier that way, but I really enjoyed that it was this easy "Go around blow stuff up, accomplish stuff, destabilize zones etc. It was not a hard game but an enjoyable one.
How about using actual geography as a reference point? If I was to make a continent sized map, with all the cultural and societal flavors seasoned in, it'd make sense to have "modules" transition, and not just biomes either. Towns close to one another should have influence between the two, like a mining town is near or is part of a commerce town, and the surrounding towns are either rich or poor because of the town's boon/oppression over them. Quests can reflect this radius of influence as well.
You all are doing great work here! I actually do a lot of pen and paper game creation ( including some semi-professional DnD/pathfinder work) and a lot of the topics you folks you cover here translate over really well. I even play your ' fail faster' video whenever I need to psyche myself up for a big project.
About what you say you're looking forward to in the end. It'll be Zelda for Wii U, mark my words! I will make that happen with my wishful thinking alone.
I think using D&D Campaign Settings is the ideal way to examine this issue. The reason is that campaign settings tend to zone things because of how things do work in real life (Birthright and Dragonlance being good examples, as well as the far more well-known Forgotten Realms in which Baldur's Gate etc. take place); some examples, on the other hand, are explicitly "zoned" (Ravenloft springs to mind).
I feel like open world games are games that allows you to create own adventure without any instructions from the game itself... the zombie apocalypse ones like DayZ , or project Zomboid, or more recently the Forest, those really give me the open world feel...
Those games are actually true sandboxes; they just have more agency than games like GTA, because the story itself is emergent and something you create/toy with, unlike GTA which just gives you mechanical toys throughout the world to play with. A game like Dwarf Fortress is a sandbox in almost every sense, allowing you to toy with how civilizations progress through your generated world, and of course with the lives of individual dwarves.
I think *Terraria* is a perfect open-world game. While there are things you need to do to 'progress' (build housing for your NPCs, create your first weapons and armor, defeat the Wall of Flesh to unlock Hard Mode), the game dosen't really enforce that you do anything; you can just build housing and explore until you the end of your natural life, if you so choose.
TheAsvarduilProject You should check out Salem: the Crafting MMO. You are dropped off in a fantasy unoccupied area of early colonial New England and told to go out, build and survive. The economy and politics are run by players and other than the starting town every piece of civilization you find is player built.
TheAsvarduilProject As much as I love Terraria, I wouldn't really consider it open world. Yes, you can do whatever you want, but that just makes it non-linear.
I think Brutal Legend may be a good example of an mix between seamless open world and module design, having no loading screens between areas and all of them being so unique and different from each other... very underrated game.
To solve this problem I think the best way to begin is by defining what is seamless, and what isn't. To actually play these old games and analyze what makes a situation or location "un-seamless." Where do the snowy mountains touch the lava pits and is there a way to arrange the pieces so that the level is actually BETTER than is was when you make the seams tidy.
no one ever asks me why I like the might and magic 6, 7, & 8 trilogy so much, but if they did, one of the things I would tell them is that they take a super limited set of graphical tools and use them to create dozens of really distinct areas each with its own feel and story-lines and identity.
Thank you so much extra credit. I've been working on an open world game and I have had some of these questions bugging me. Thanks for addressing them :D You guys are the BEST!
Really shows how BOTW can be a groundbreaking open world game. It's Zelda, the developers have been in the game, and Nintendo never goes into something without trying to evolve it in some way
To answer the Q at the end: Places can have their own theme and feel, but giving them a way to interact with and between other areas gives the impression that they are not as isolated from each other as a module setup would give. If you see easy contrasts, but there are still easy connections.
These videos are so ridiculously helpful! As I am slowly wading into the waters of graphic design. Right now I'm working on my first true game. Which isn't open world, but I do hope to create a sandbox style game in the future that's a mish-mash of RCT, SimCity and Civilization.
I think Red Faction: Guerilla does this pretty well. The world feels connected, but each area has its own aesthetics, backstory and dangers. Since the borders are provinces with local governance that you are tasked with overthrowing, the developers were able to craft a quest line for each area. And being sent on a mission in a new area ahead of unlocking it is a very powerful experience, as is travelling back to the first area after getting used to the later ones. Seeing the sky turn red from the transition into Parker (the first area) after hours of playing in EOS (the semi-last) is, to me, like coming home again.
Borderlands 2 also deserves a mention. It does not have smooth transitions, but each area has a remarkably consistent and different feel. But despite it having areas ranging from frozen wastes to a river of fire it all feels connected. From a high cliff on a forested mountain you can look out over hazy deserts and deep gorges. A bridge might give you a view of the icy glacier the player starts in. Also, the game has no falling damage, so getting to a magnificent vista usually means you can jump right off of it. And that is awesome.
I think Xenoblade Chronicles is also a good example of this despite the semi-linear layout of the areas of the game. The areas are designed really well and can be quite breathtaking if looked at in the right context. It might not be necessarily open-world(not sure if it meets all the criteria or not,) but it can feel like it.
This is more story oriented world building but wouldn't it just make sense to create a geographic area and put living creatures where it makes sense to have them? Companies like Bethesda don't seem to ask questions like "what do they eat?" when world building. Call me picky but while having a town built around a bomb is cool n everything, what do the people of Megaton eat? There's no farms there or in the surrounding area, a single cow in the town, and everywhere you can scavenge food is filled with bandits. This makes it seem like the people of Megaton are in peril but nah, they're good. Meanwhile in Fallout New Vegas, the very first town your in has like a mini ranch and everyone grows food in heir yard and has a job in town like an actual community. It feels like there's actually a reason for them to be there. But oh man, the strip, what do they e- WOAH, MEGAFARM! Attention to detail is what makes a world feel whole. Do you think Tolkein just wrote a story and created the world as he went? Nope. The man created different races with their own reasons to be places, he created languages and then CREATED DIALECTS FOR THEM. He spent a long time crafting the world before he made a story.
I like when games have multiple biomes and different stories in different stories. And a feel like a game that lacks a main story actually gives more freedom. People make fun of RuneScape a lot but I like how you had "horror" themed zones and "desert" themed zones and because there wasn't a main story you could pick and choose (to a certain extent) what you wanted to do.
Haha that ending music brought back memories... On a more serious thought, I feel like those two different approaches lead to sandbox MMOs vs theme park MMOs
As someone who played a lot of Minecraft when I was young(er), my favorite type of game is open world and sandboxes. Probably one of the reasons I quickly became addicted to BotW. Not to say I don't enjoy linear games, but I don't find myself as emersed in it.
I'd say one of the best Sand Box kind of game is the Just Cause series, especially once they introduced the grapling hook. Let's face it you're not there for that awful story are you.
I've been reading a lot on running a megadungeon campaign with old school D&D, and how the dungeon is in fact a sandbox of exploration and player agency with minimal distractions within the dungeon about. Megadungeons actually encourage avoiding and negoiating with the monster groups therein as much as fighting with them, as recovered treasure awards the bulk of experience points. (You aren't supposed to be able to clear the whole thing out, anyway) Find treasure, get out. But sometimes, its interesting for the players (possibly at higher levels if they haven't died yet) to spend some gold or be requested by some big wig to go to an exotic locale a get involved in a conflict that requires them to actually clear out a lair (or at least, defeat the boss/complete some other objective) with lots of set pieces that can explosively help or hinder the completion of such an adventure. (Castle Ravenloft had a Sunblade AND a deck of many things? Really?) Basically, I'd combine megadungeon with occasional, optional modules.
Honestly, you guys do a great job, and I know there's probably a good reason why it wasn't mentioned, but doesn't Guild Wars 2 sound like exactly the game you're looking forward to seeing? It is instanced, but there is an incredibly strong narrative between worlds that, even if it wasn't, and even if all the worlds looked the same, you'd see a clear distinction from one area to the next; the adventures within each area are so tightly buttoned up and so carefully crafted that the game actually feels like a single player experience until level cap.
I think it would be cool to have something like skyrim but there are seamless zones that might challenge you in different ways than other zones. Like say for example the a certain region of skyrim had more focus on magic and then they provided lore to back it up. Then another region could be more focused on physical weaponry. Then the dungeons in those regions could also follow that code. If you aren't good at fighting magic then you should stay out of a certain region until you are strong enough. Where as if you choose to go a different skill route in a new game, you might want to be in a magic area more because you can handle that combat more.
Zelda U may well combine both the elements you were talking about. They've talked about going back to the original Zelda style of having an open world to explore and seem to be delivering but since Link to the Past all of the dungeons have had very particular themes centered around their location and the item you get there (Or need to rent/buy in Link Between Worlds).
Unsurprisingly... this is the point where I utterly disagree. The whole module-based thing really isn't doing it right at all. The idea of having clearly defined areas with their own boundaries and all the quests (besides the main quest) contained explicitly within them feels horribly unnatural... and is not a desirable way to go about it. The edges HAVE to be blurred together for it to work well. There has to be a sense of the land transitioning between different environments and not just abruptly flipping a switch, or else the sense of immersion is completely lost. Similarly, there is no reason why quests shouldn't be more variable in their scatter and scope. Snowland quests, grassland quests and volcanoland quests always come across as hopelessly gimmicky... whereas the way Elder Scrolls games handle it, though not perfect, makes far more sense: Quests aren't going to be limited to a particular area, and some might require travelling, and they shouldn't be explicitly "themed" in groups. That just feels horribly wrong. Getting lost now and again, or accidentally wandering into a dangerous area, is just part of what makes the Elder Scrolls games great. It is what really gives one a sense of scope for the world that you can't get with a bunch of strictly defined module-regions. The take-home point here is.... if you want to make a good open-world game.... do NOT follow the advice of this video. Don't even start.
=Shrug= It worked just fine with Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, and Dragon's Dogma. GTA San Andrea's 3 cities, Los Santos, San Fierro and Las Venturas all had defined themes to them as well.
Wildeye13 Firstly... the Baldur's Gate games were fine in their own respect... but the major disappointment with them was the module-based nature of them. The fact that it felt like I wasn't even in the same game any more when I went from one area to the next. And Dragon's Dogma wasn't module-based... Not sure why you'd believe it was.
That's what I get for typing multiple things at one go. My bad, I only meant the 1st two Baldur's Gates. Still, I think a module-based open world can be good if done well and it's ultimately up to the player to decide if it's their thing or not. However, I would agree not recommending this style of game world to budding game developers because it's a style that a lot of skill and experience to pull off effectively and the bad ones do end up having all the problems you've pointed out in your original post out in the open for everyone to see and be very hard to ignore.
It just feels glaringly wrong because the world just isn't like that, and nothing about human experience is ever like that. No matter where you go, the nature of a place will bleed into its surroundings, and people will involve themselves with other people and places outside of their own immediate vicinity. No world consisting only of clearly edge-defined "themed" zones can ever feel natural because the act of grouping things conveniently together into little compartments is a very artificial thing to do.
SotiCoto You make a great point here. I was going to "knee-jerkingly" disagree with you at first because BG1 and 2 are the sort of games I replay now and again to remind myself what a good story in an RPG feels like, but when I think about it in the terms you put here, specifically "nothing about human experience is ever like that" I can't help but agree. You see in Shadows of Amn and Throne of Baal an increased attempt to remedy that problem by putting in lines here and there to connect the adventure to your previous decisions in game and make it all blend together as a more human experience, but I think that becomes more of a development issue as the cost goes up with labyrinthine dialogue trees and scenes. On the other hand the first design philosophy of "sprinkling" can run into the same problems, if not as obviously, when we only get token acknowledgements(if that) of our previous actions in the mash of quests and towns all over the open world. All in all I think the problem you bring up here is actually less about module design and more adding a slew of side stories without making your world feel unconnected, unnatural, and exhausting. Sort of a nutshell of open world design entirely- anyhow thanks for bringing it up. 'Gave me food for thought.
I just realised Season 8 is my favourite season of Extra Credits, and to think we've come all this way from, "My name is this and today we're going to be talking about these."
I agree for the most part but with your definition of the second design style I have to bring up that Skyrim does this to a certain degree. Each of the holds has different different biomes with different plants, animals, and factions. Whiterun's hold is mostly rolling plains, Windhelm has a swamp south of it, Riften and giant lake, Falkreath has a thick deciduous forest, and Markarth is mountainous, rocky, and hilly with the Forsworn instead of bandits like other holds. These holds have similar color pallets and many design choices overlap but ultimately it seems like, to me at least, it still fits your definition to a certain degree.
Couldn't you do number one then divide it into section with themes, skins, different balancing, and different enemies? Take 10 teams give each team a skeleton of the game with blank themes, basic enemies (that are universal in the game), and pre-made structures (props, lighting, etc.) but at the end get the teams together to make them flow smoothly together. We do this in Minecraft all the time. The block style and the mechanics in Minecraft are the skeleton, the mobs are the basic enemies, and we have a few universal structure layouts that we all fallow (for example this world might have a cold climate, high famine, and a few structure examples) then we give basic rules and concepts to each build team so they all run and work smoothly together, split the world into sections and go with it. Then, at the very end, neighbor teams work together so the world makes smooth transitions. We made 10 small maps that are different then smoothed them together to make a massive map.
As a writer, I sometimes feel it would be better to create the world before deciding on either method. Create the world, the politics and the history and the legends and the towns/dungeons/encounters will fall into place.
They did an episode on why a writing-first method can have dire consequences for production. Personally I've found that developing lore and mechanics in tandem (which can be hard since it requires that you have skill in both writing and design) works best overall.
Deafmonkey21 Or, you just have a designer/writer team working very closely together. Developing lore and mechanics in tandem is *definitely* a smart way to go. That's probably why the video mentioned that more team communication is essential to creating a more holistic world experience.
I think this approach works well for D&D because you already have the mechanics filled out and set. You can houserule things or create your own classes/races/etc. but the core the game is already complete.
With video games, that core mechanical expression of the game is not created.
How're you
@@exposingurmom5899 lol
1: Make world
2: Fill it up with things to do
3: Add main story
This way it feels like the story is happening in a place rather than a place happening around a story.
Repeat 1, 2 & 3 untill you run out of time/budget.
I think why this doesn't happen, is that you'd throw a huge chunk of you budget into a project and would than have to ope that someone comes up with a gerat and fitting story that doesn't feel taged on.. might just be me
yeckiLP
When I made campaigns in my old DnD days, that was actually the approach I would have used to make my campaigns. First I'd just make the geography, then I put stuff in it, towns, lairs, nests, interesting features, etc, made sure to give these places history, and thought about how they would interact with each other, if at all. This is most easily done by at least taking inspiration from already written stories, or adding the entire stories to your world, making adjustments when necessary so it all makes sense.
THEN, finally I made the actual plot. The plot rarely came off as forced so long as I allowed it to make itself, rather than think about how things should progress every single time. Just add an element to your world, and see what happens. Think about how it will react to your world. What would happen as time progressed? How will the old relations be affected etc etc. Essentially I rode the wave of the logical next step in your world, and add in twists and character development where necessary.
The problem with making the story first, is now that, no matter how hard you try, you're going to subconsciously bend the world around the story, and that's going to make it more linear and more bland than it ought to be, taking the exploration out of it. That's crippling for open-world games.
You don't need to spend alot of budget going down a path that won't work. There's no animating or programming or scripting here. You just draw a map on grid paper, put stuff in it, and write a story (or take one). This is all stuff you can do in pre-planning. It all just takes time.
nsgamer22
That´s pretty much how I did it to.
I think it worked pretty well.
nsgamer22 That's exactly why WotC sells books that detail settings in D&D, along with actual adventure modules. They do the world-building for you (which for me, is a daunting task that I have never personally undertaken) so you can focus on making a story that fits. Baldur's Gate had this done for them as well; their game was set in Forgotten Realms, which is a pre-established D&D setting.
The ramp versus goblin camp bit. I have a slight argument for that. I mean ultimately yes you're right. But take for example one of my dad's favorite things to do in skyrim. There is this one particular forsworn camp he likes to terrorize. He sets himself up on the cliffs just within render distance of the camp and he snipes them with his bow. If he runs out of arrows he moves to a closer cliff that he can peek over and bait the forsworn into shooting at him. Then he'll duck down behind a rock and catch the arrow as it bounces off the cliff wall behind the rock he's hiding behind. He will literally do this for days. He'll mess around with the camp, wipe out all the forsworn, leave and do something else for a couple in game days, and then come back when he knows the camp is refilled again. So for him the forsworn camp is more like the ramp in your analogy, its a toy for him. He enjoys skyrim quite a bit more than I do for this reason.
I'm just surprised your dad likes games... :(
+Hand Sanitizer Attack My dad is a gamer too
Oh that reminds me of how tedious "stealth" combat was... shoot 1 arrow... hide and wait for enemies to drop aggro... repeat
such a slow crawl
Until you get enough stealth to walk up to enemies and just kill them with one hit with daggers...so silly
I'd say many rpg's have a big sandbox element to them.. It's really about exploring and playing with systems right? Skyrim's open world also invites the player to come up with goals that are very personal to them.
Even if you'd technically not call it a sandbox, a lot can be learned from sandbox games when making rpg's with deep systems and enough complexity to play around with.
That is what damage overhauls are for. At least on pc. I loved the threat of getting hit by one stray arrow and dying, but the trade off of not having to do that shoot and wait nonsense was well worth it. I still did it, but when I did it was called for rather than just for the damage boost. In vanilla getting shot by an arrow wasn't a super big deal, however if I picked off one or two guys and their watchmen zeroed in on me you could die super easy.
Though this comment will likely be ignored, I can provide some great advise on this subject matter as to 'how' to design an open world. The biggest piece and most crucial advise I can give designers is that the human eye is great at grasping depth detail. Whether you realize it or not, either consciously or subconsciously, the human eye notices straight lines and curves, and extrapolates three-dimensional depth at a glance. Good level designers know this and intentionally make an effort to break up the terrain profile so that players are able to more easily gain immersion from their experiences. Assuming you don't try to break up the terrain and go with a '"flat" surface, the human eye will notice the straight lines and to some degree consciously avoid immersion into the game as an "artificial" experience. This; however, is not a mere matter of simply adding hills. The human eye also extrapolates a basic understanding of basic terrain concepts from real life experience. Adding hills without rocks, trees, grass, etc; to break up the profile will also have the same effect as noticing straight lines.
Bethesda actually does a really good job at making areas feel holistic. In skyrim, the areas with the autumn theme have custom trees, grass, plants, etc. Same applies to woods, meadows, dungeons, towns, snowy areas, mountains, caves, etc.
I really liked the Open World Design in the Gothic Series. They provided natural boundaries for the player by placing high-level enemies and ridges as well as cliffs.
This is what Fallout New Vegas did at the start of the game as well.
oQuindo1 Honestly, that aspect of New Vegas was just plain terrible.
oQuindo1 This is done much better in Fallout 1&2.
6:10 - hearing the music again gave me shivers...
This is beyond nostalgia, somehow a core bit of who I am has been defined by that series of games, and for that matter all of the previous titles from that developer.
SO
Zelda Breath of the Wild
Open World or Sandbox
Because you can do both
Rotciv7777777 truth be told I think he's being too strict of differentiating to see the same rules pretty much apply. Even then just sticking to western example 3D action adventure platformers, assassin's creed, Kingdom's of Amalur and the witcher franchise are examples of the module philosophy working in an open world setting and that's before you get to Jrpgs.
Nintendo classifies it as an "Open Air" game.
Both!! : )
I have to say its both
Both but leaning more to the open world side
The fact that different design philosophies is what underlies every design decision, and that the entire team should be on the same page regarding their chosen philosophy, is something that some studio bosses have a very hard time understanding. A project that I'm basically bailing out on (along with two other people, who feel similarly about it) is a great example of how little understanding of actual design methodology some companies tend to have.
When I tried to get the boss on the same page, all I ever heard was "You're overcomplicating things." or "Now you're just quoting a game design book.". Why yes, yes I am doing both those things. It's sort of my job to communicate these minute, subtle decisions and problems to others... problems arise when they're not listening.
Have you guys talked about how to keep the overall story in the open world RPGs or sandbox games interesting? Because I find that to be the biggest issue where the side quests and lore of the game is much more interesting than the main game. Heck, it's my problem with games like Skyrim and Dragon's Dogma
IAmTheMikko
I agree. I remember playing Dragon's Dogma and while I was having fun fighting giants and hopping ontop of griffins to kill them, I totally forgot the story and that there was one. Same with Kingdoms of Amalur and a majority of RPGs that have open ended gameplay.
i agree, but keep in mind that its much better than the alternative: a good story with a bunch of boring ass side quests that the devs wasted their time on that you will never do, when they couldv made the base game so much better
just look at dragon age lol..
I love you guys. Seriously, your show teaches me so much about what I want to eventually do for a living. Thank you for being available as an educational tool that I feel actually applies to the career that I want to pursue.
how is that going for you now?
"I've got to say, I'm looking forward to seeing a game crack the problem of providing modules, many adventures, and tiny cohesive stories in a seamless open-world design" = Breath of the Wild (2017)
As someone who is a bit of a self-professed aficionado of open-world RPGs, I actually much MUCH prefer the first mentality you talked about. A game doesn't feel like a true open-world if you constantly have to worry about "zones" or "realms", but more of a series of mini open-world games. Each part, just by it's very nature of being it's own mini universe, becomes slightly disjointed from the rest of the game universe. While I see your points when it comes to games like the elder scrolls series, they still feel far more open-world to me than something like baldur's gate or WoW, and thus I prefer them, even if they do suffer from potentially weaker regional identity or character development.
epicpolyphony As a die-hard Morrowind fan, I agree. Not implying that I don't enjoy the other type of open world rpgs.
I look forward to seeing how Bioware handles the semi-open world in DAI, they definitely seems to be taking notes from the modular way of thinking. Great choice for the ending song, btw. One of my fav remixes.
5:40 i would say far cry 3 did the camps / outposts really well. i played with those heaps, seeing different ways to take them out, using different weapons or distraactions
+1wsx10
Best strat: have the best sniper availible at any given point, search for the highest spot near a camp with good vision, and headshot it clear. +1500 points, repeat 50 times more.
Jürgen Hans
sure, if you want points. personally i play games for fun ;)
+1wsx10 Sure, they handled it well but the video makes a good point. You can't "play around" with it in the same way you can in GTA with ramps and shit. When approaching the outposts, you have a goal; Secure the outpost or sneak around/away from it. How you go about it may vary but in the end its kill them, let some animals kill them, or walk away.
In contrast, Minecraft enemies can be killed, trapped, used as defenses for your base, slaughtered for items in horrible yet brilliant machinations, and so on.
Also, I love Far Cry 3 and also Minecraft so I am unbiased!
+Mike Aruba in the video they mentioned the difference between a sandbox and an open world game. in a sandbox you make your own goals, and an open world you have goals set out for you. in far cry 3/4, aside from the story your mission is to liberate all the outposts similar to just cause. in minecraft there aren't really any goals. sure, you could say the goal is to survive but you can do that by leaving the computer. ok, turn the difficulty up then there is more required of you but you can still do that in a very boring manner. almost all of the features in that game are not required to complete the 'goal'
I like Far Cry 4 even better. You could take multiple approaches like Far Cry 3 but you also had a lot of emergent events. I'm about to rescue to some hostages who are walking with captors when an eagle attacks and does half of the job for me.
Videos like this are why I don't have notifications turned off for you. I just learned far more than I bargained for, in far more areas that I was seeking answers in than what I was searching for.
That whole "modules" thing reminded me of Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door. While you did have to go through the story one way and go through everything in order, every chapter did feel at least somewhat different and they all had their own mini story line, while all having a connection to the main story line. So maybe you could look at that game to see how to effectively make those mini story lines.
Suzy Kersten ooooooooooooooo you at me here
Another thing you didn't mention is that if you plan on making a good open world game, you want to add things to find that are worth finding regardless of whether they are central to the main plot or not. In fact it is required to have things worth finding that are completely outside the main plot because it allows the player the opportunity to strengthen their character if they feel they are not ready to complete the main story.
3:54 I see that banner. I absolutely agree. Dragon's Dogma was amazing.
Hey James, I think that something like 70% of the quests should fall within their own thematic "module" while the other 30% of quests cross over into 2 or more modules to maintain the sense that the world is actually connected intrinsically and not simply a bunch of clearly defined modules placed next to each other.
It feels better to me when players have a hub overworld to go back to between quests. It's also great when levels conect together, so a game like Banjo-Tooie seems perfect, mostly using an overworld to move between levels, but with some puzzle connections between levels, especially involving the train stations.
There’s one game I’ve played which uses the patch method quite well. Mostly because it managed to just draw from its source material well.
It’s the MMO Star Wars the Old Republic. The stories are generally contained in each planet. So it just used the fact that it’s in space, and you fly your ship from one to the other to get to the missions on each planet.
Star Trek Online did the same thing, but it further incorporated the flying through space as an important element of its own, with space combat and exploration, so the missions usually start in space, then go to the planet, and come back to space.
Extra Credits:
An open-world game with modules, adventures, and a story doesn't exi-
*Breath of the Wild*
this video was made before breath of the wild existed you moron
@@theotherguy4456 I’m pretty sure that’s the point
Extra credits says the thing and then botw comes out to prove them wrong
If you're looking for a interesting take that combines open world, themed areas, and special stories for that area I recommend looking at the newest patch for Firefall that's leading into their release. Ever since they replaced Mark Kern, the new management has been making leaps and bounds. They managed to product more content in the last half a year then the last three years combined. I highly recommend giving it a look!
I actually do know how Bethesda does their open world games, and I love them all the more for it. It's also why I would argue their approach is better than the module based style of MMOs.
Bethesda will have writers script out the main story and some important parts they want to get out, and begin plotting out the path through the wilderness at concept phase, while other teams are given free reign to start populating the cities with quests they want to make. One group will start working on stuff you know will be in all TES games for example, like the Daedric Artifact quests, while another will start populating quests into a given city, often having it go somewhere else.
To me this approach makes the game more immersive, as module based gameplay tends to feel TOO centralized, and unrealistic. It also lends itself to encouraging exploration as you will sometimes go wondering off and find pieces of a quest before you have even started it. (This was done exceptionally well in Divinity: Original Sin) The lack of exploration is a plus for some people, but a major negative to me, and what I hated about most MMOs. You had clear objectives in central hubs, and would only go where directed. Something that GW2 did an outstanding job to remedy with secret areas, the 'jumping puzzles,' and loot stashes.
I recently took a class on game design, and I am now creating my own Indie Games. Though, they are very simple compared to other Indie Games. I took the class because I've always wanted to create games, and because I've been a fan of this show for a long time, and I wanted to use the knowledge I learned from these videos to help me create a game. Sadly, I can't.
I also wanted to say how amazing it will be when every person I encounter has experience making a game. In an episode of Extra Credits, he said that not everyone who has an idea for a game, can just go ahed and make it. Well, I'll love the day when no matter the idea, you'll be able to make a game, no matter how complex, no matter who you are.
I guess it could be argued that the Elder Scrolls has done the second approach but just on a really large scale. Skyrim isn't a world, it's a unique part of the larger world.
Thats.... not how it works...
Benete Silva What do you mean? They were talking about how designers could either create a world with different types of areas (forest vs town), or create a world with different styled areas (green forest vs winter forest). I'm saying Skyrim has a unique style, but it's still part of the larger world of Tamriel, just like how Morrowind has a different style because it's in a different part of Tamriel.
TheJaredtheJaredlong Yeah, but what difference does that make for Skyrim, the game?
***** Yeah, Skyrim, in itself is the first approach, but the Elder Scrolls considered as an entirety can be seen as the second approach.
when people say "open-world" or "game world" they dont literally mean "world", as in, an entire planet. They are talking about the *setting* of the game, regardless if said setting is a country, a continet or whatever. You can't say: _"oh but if you consider the entire series than its the second approach because each game is set in a different place of the same world"_ because thats a given, pretty much *every* game series is like that.
Mount and Blade would be a good example of modulesque play within an open world, as there are clearly defined zones in the form of the different kingdoms and the environments they start out in. Each kingdom has its own quirks and mini quests, such as the various pretenders, differing styles of tournaments, as well as how they will interact with you given your past encounters with other members of their nation.
they are doing interesting with open world design inside of the next Legend of Zelda. I can't wait to see it.
When it comes to dark souls 2, areas are sortof open world, but they hide astetics. Meaning in actual collision data of the game, there are several areas that collide when pieced together in a 3D scape. It isn't a bad design, it just makes map making confusing, but obviously a place torn to shreds by the Abyss would have some spacial distortion eh?
I'm not a dev or anything like that, I'm sort of a casual gamer. But I love watching extra credit, it gives logical explanation to games I play. Explaining stuff I never thought of in games like themes, I just play to play. Thanks for making me think more about the games I enjoy. :)
This seems like an artificial distinction. Dungeons and towns aren't simply plonked down randomly in Elder Scrolls games, they are made based on maps and lore. Morrowind in particular had distinct areas with narratives and dungeons that correlated inside it. I think the more meaningful distinction between TES and Baldur's Gate is that TES is entirely non-linear whereas Baldur's Gate is a lot more directed.
Agreed. I am 6 years late but this dude just loves his modules and likes a narrative given to him, as opposed to engaging the World as the narrative. ES will never module down their game the way he suggests, and thank god for that
I've missed the old Tibia mmo. It had a huge map with all kinds of dungeons scattered across it. And the best part of the mechanics was that if you die you lost your backpack with loot, gold and some of your gear.
So if you were out exploring and found a cave the suspense really got to you. Because you didn't know what could be inside (or if you could get back out again).
When it comes to a well implemented open world my go-to example is still The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. That game felt more alive and unified than any other open world I have ever played because they didn't build it around the player. I love the fact that you have to choose between Morag Tong and Comona Tong guilds, and even at that you never rise to the top of any house or guild. Yea, to Vivec and Cassius, and Dagoth Ur I was the Nerevarine... but to everyone else I was that random dude piling dishes everywhere. Oblivion built too much around the character (I was Champion of Cyradil, leader of the fighter's guild, Mage's Guild, Thief's guild, AND Dark Brotherhood, as well as the divine crusader AND the god of madness.) And Skyrim was too built around the plot (Gotta take the dragon claw to the dragon shrine so I can kill the dragon priest and get the dragon staff which I can grade for the dragon key to open the dragon door to the dragon library so I can get the dragon cookbook and make myself a dragon brisket)
Eh, I think saturating the market with rings of waterbreathing made with wolf/deer /fox/rabbit souls and gold smelted from transmuted ore isn't exactly part of the plot of Skyrim. :P
All I'm saying is that everywhere you turn in Skyrim, everything was Dragons. Sometimes, I like to forget the plot of an Elder Scrolls game when I am exploring the world. Especially after I finish the main story. Once I killed Dagoth in Morrowind, everything else was about me in that world and the DLC was something different entirely.
DRAGON BRISKET!!!
I liked the random dragon encounters in skyrim, it made them feel like a part of the world instead of just boss battles. but yeah, the game was a little obsessed with them. i just wish i didn't find Morrowind so dull. not the world, that's amazing, but i came to it this year and the mechanics just feel a bit slow and unpolished for me to enjoy it.
Taggart The dice roll mechanic in Morrowind can get really annoying at times.
The Elder Scrolls is my favorite game series exactly for its approach to open world design it feels a lot more immersive to me, that I don't run into loading screens all the time (although switching into an interior cell still has loading screens, which I hope will also become a thing of the past with the progress of technology), I think the world feels more organic, and even if the game doesn't provide toys like the mentioned example of a ramp in GTA, I think it becomes engaging in the way you can roleplay in such an environment, because I think roleplaying doesn't only come from dialogue choices, but also how you interact with your world. It can be as simple as how some people deliberately don't use the fast travel function in Oblivion and Skyrim.
I believe that DS1 is the better example, Lordran just feels like one cohesive world were everything is connected and while you do not see huge landmasses like in an Elder Scrolls game, there is not one single loading screen and I could actually draw a whole map if asked by memory. The place is so cohesive that it might be the only game I have not fast traveled. DS2 is more of a Zelda Majora's Mask type of world but without loading screens, were you travel to locations that feel so different from one another and it is not as cohesive, even then I think that majora's did a better job. Also in DS2 there are hidden loading screens, like the elevators that take you completely different areas, for some reason. DS1 is an small but extremely well crafted Open World. Well all of this is my opinion.
TheBasti82 Well to be fair, no Dark Souls game has been an Open World. It is more like connected levels. So they are linear in design and then they are connected through passages and shortcuts.
DS2 adds Level-Barriers too, 40% of the game is blocked by the progress of the character, like Drangleic Castle, and the Symbol of the King areas, also the memories
What in my opinion makes DS1 the closest to being an open world is not the accessibility, since you need to complete certain stages of the game to access them. Even with the closed areas in DS1, DS1 felt more like an open world to me than DS2, even when none of the two are open world, is how everything is connected making it feel like a real and cohesive world. Instead of going up on an elevator in the top of a tower, and ending on top of a sea of lava. Don't get me wrong I still love DS2, I am not of those that bash the game blindly, but that game has its issues.
Very relevant to the D&D campaign I am currently writing! I have gone for the module approach, but in an open world, which is quite typical of the D&D genre. That is, though the players are free to explore the whole world, I, the GM, will keep drawing them back to one particular area (or module) where the main storyline is happening.
I felt the areas in Skyrim were actually well distinguished , Riften(den of intrigue) was very thematically different from say, Windhelm (institutional racism-ville), or Winterhold. Different flora and fauna unique to the areas,Turf wars going on around Markarth, etc.
But the theme only characterized a few quests (forsworns, Riften), dialogues (racism) and how the place looked.
It wasn't a full-blown story that encompassed the whole region in it, uniting a whole bunch of characters, dungeons and events. In TES games you never really feel like you "cleared" a region, you only did all the quests inside it, and that's because they aren't tied together into a story.
That's what he was trying to say.
Dude, I stumbled onto your channel and I love it! You care so much and that passion comes out through your words. The reason most of us are here is because we want to be able to discuss video games in an academic approach and you bring us much closer to that future. Thank you for your work and dedication to your channel! Allons-y!
5:40 The legand of zelda breath of the wild fixes that problem.
Hey Extra Credits, what do you think of the Monster Hunter series?
Hey James, as an indie game dev, this video is perfect for giving us vocabulary on how to communicate game design decisions, especially to industry/professional “noobs”. Thank you!
Aren't different provinces (when available in TES) also considered zones?
***** Well ive never played ESO but they look pretty distinct
***** Nah, PROVINCES really are distinct. Just look at ESO.
Jello I guess TES isnt really good with zones
Julia Binarystar But they are diverse looking??
Jello Again, never played ESO, I thought you were being sarcastic
You have not mentioned GR: Wildlands, which I really liked in terms of how they solved the open world setting. There are zones there, and you can transit between them as you like in a seamless fashion. They designed it with a certain main goal for each zone and additional goodies like extra weapons to find which made you explore that given zone more only because you were hunting for a specific enemy / item. It was less of an exploration as Skyrim, since you more or less knew why you go there and where you will find it, yet it was kept interesting enough though the story so you sometimes invested in keeping in the zone just to shut down a certain villain. They solved it by inserting the story when you changed zones. You always had a dialogue explaining what is happening there and what you will need to advance in that zone. The zones were more or less at an equal difficulty, so you had no pressure to finish one before moving to another. It really felt like you are in 1 enormous map where you are free to go wherever you want.
Of course the game was slightly easier that way, but I really enjoyed that it was this easy "Go around blow stuff up, accomplish stuff, destabilize zones etc. It was not a hard game but an enjoyable one.
How about using actual geography as a reference point? If I was to make a continent sized map, with all the cultural and societal flavors seasoned in, it'd make sense to have "modules" transition, and not just biomes either. Towns close to one another should have influence between the two, like a mining town is near or is part of a commerce town, and the surrounding towns are either rich or poor because of the town's boon/oppression over them. Quests can reflect this radius of influence as well.
Awesome point! Though such aspirations can be difficult to bring to fruition, doing so is highly fulfilling.
Assassins creed 4 partly did that.
Brutal Legend did a very good job of a patchwork going seemlessly. the colors, enemies, and sky change every time you go to a new area.
+wreckageoftheworld That's the WoW way, which is addressed on the video
+Alenthas I've never played WoW, didn't realize that's what he meant
Looking back on this episode and comparing it to Breath of the Wild is very interesting indeed.
You all are doing great work here! I actually do a lot of pen and paper game creation ( including some semi-professional DnD/pathfinder work) and a lot of the topics you folks you cover here translate over really well. I even play your ' fail faster' video whenever I need to psyche myself up for a big project.
About what you say you're looking forward to in the end. It'll be Zelda for Wii U, mark my words!
I will make that happen with my wishful thinking alone.
I really enjoyed this episode, not only because you used 2 of my favorite games as examples
And Zelda BotW has added a whole lot of new stuff to this equation.
I think using D&D Campaign Settings is the ideal way to examine this issue.
The reason is that campaign settings tend to zone things because of how things do work in real life (Birthright and Dragonlance being good examples, as well as the far more well-known Forgotten Realms in which Baldur's Gate etc. take place); some examples, on the other hand, are explicitly "zoned" (Ravenloft springs to mind).
I feel like open world games are games that allows you to create own adventure without any instructions from the game itself... the zombie apocalypse ones like DayZ , or project Zomboid, or more recently the Forest, those really give me the open world feel...
Those games are actually true sandboxes; they just have more agency than games like GTA, because the story itself is emergent and something you create/toy with, unlike GTA which just gives you mechanical toys throughout the world to play with. A game like Dwarf Fortress is a sandbox in almost every sense, allowing you to toy with how civilizations progress through your generated world, and of course with the lives of individual dwarves.
I think *Terraria* is a perfect open-world game. While there are things you need to do to 'progress' (build housing for your NPCs, create your first weapons and armor, defeat the Wall of Flesh to unlock Hard Mode), the game dosen't really enforce that you do anything; you can just build housing and explore until you the end of your natural life, if you so choose.
TheAsvarduilProject You should check out Salem: the Crafting MMO. You are dropped off in a fantasy unoccupied area of early colonial New England and told to go out, build and survive. The economy and politics are run by players and other than the starting town every piece of civilization you find is player built.
TheAsvarduilProject As much as I love Terraria, I wouldn't really consider it open world. Yes, you can do whatever you want, but that just makes it non-linear.
Mount & Blade has that feeling too. It feels like it has a story, but it doesn't.
I think Brutal Legend may be a good example of an mix between seamless open world and module design, having no loading screens between areas and all of them being so unique and different from each other... very underrated game.
breath of the wild
*Orgasm*
*Ye*
Amen
breath of the wild
More like breath of the mild lol
To solve this problem I think the best way to begin is by defining what is seamless, and what isn't. To actually play these old games and analyze what makes a situation or location "un-seamless." Where do the snowy mountains touch the lava pits and is there a way to arrange the pieces so that the level is actually BETTER than is was when you make the seams tidy.
Man, if only this was made recently. Breath of the Wild is a different beast. It should be what all other open world games aspire to be.
no one ever asks me why I like the might and magic 6, 7, & 8 trilogy so much, but if they did, one of the things I would tell them is that they take a super limited set of graphical tools and use them to create dozens of really distinct areas each with its own feel and story-lines and identity.
I wish I had people to just discuss video game design with.
These comment are a decent place for it.
Have you tried forums at gaming sites like gametrailers? I used to go there a lot, although it's been a while.
bleh
Thank you so much extra credit. I've been working on an open world game and I have had some of these questions bugging me. Thanks for addressing them :D
You guys are the BEST!
Really shows how BOTW can be a groundbreaking open world game. It's Zelda, the developers have been in the game, and Nintendo never goes into something without trying to evolve it in some way
True though I wish they would stop trying to evolve the Paper Mario series.
To answer the Q at the end: Places can have their own theme and feel, but giving them a way to interact with and between other areas gives the impression that they are not as isolated from each other as a module setup would give.
If you see easy contrasts, but there are still easy connections.
Lol that end is just explaining Zelda: Breath of the Wild
These videos are so ridiculously helpful! As I am slowly wading into the waters of graphic design. Right now I'm working on my first true game. Which isn't open world, but I do hope to create a sandbox style game in the future that's a mish-mash of RCT, SimCity and Civilization.
I think Red Faction: Guerilla does this pretty well. The world feels connected, but each area has its own aesthetics, backstory and dangers. Since the borders are provinces with local governance that you are tasked with overthrowing, the developers were able to craft a quest line for each area. And being sent on a mission in a new area ahead of unlocking it is a very powerful experience, as is travelling back to the first area after getting used to the later ones. Seeing the sky turn red from the transition into Parker (the first area) after hours of playing in EOS (the semi-last) is, to me, like coming home again.
Borderlands 2 also deserves a mention. It does not have smooth transitions, but each area has a remarkably consistent and different feel. But despite it having areas ranging from frozen wastes to a river of fire it all feels connected. From a high cliff on a forested mountain you can look out over hazy deserts and deep gorges. A bridge might give you a view of the icy glacier the player starts in.
Also, the game has no falling damage, so getting to a magnificent vista usually means you can jump right off of it. And that is awesome.
6:00 And cue Zelda Breath of the Wild
WyvernClaw It had a plot?
I think Xenoblade Chronicles is also a good example of this despite the semi-linear layout of the areas of the game. The areas are designed really well and can be quite breathtaking if looked at in the right context. It might not be necessarily open-world(not sure if it meets all the criteria or not,) but it can feel like it.
This is more story oriented world building but wouldn't it just make sense to create a geographic area and put living creatures where it makes sense to have them?
Companies like Bethesda don't seem to ask questions like "what do they eat?" when world building. Call me picky but while having a town built around a bomb is cool n everything, what do the people of Megaton eat? There's no farms there or in the surrounding area, a single cow in the town, and everywhere you can scavenge food is filled with bandits. This makes it seem like the people of Megaton are in peril but nah, they're good. Meanwhile in Fallout New Vegas, the very first town your in has like a mini ranch and everyone grows food in heir yard and has a job in town like an actual community. It feels like there's actually a reason for them to be there. But oh man, the strip, what do they e- WOAH, MEGAFARM!
Attention to detail is what makes a world feel whole. Do you think Tolkein just wrote a story and created the world as he went? Nope. The man created different races with their own reasons to be places, he created languages and then CREATED DIALECTS FOR THEM. He spent a long time crafting the world before he made a story.
You're thinking with Shandification, aren't you?
I like when games have multiple biomes and different stories in different stories. And a feel like a game that lacks a main story actually gives more freedom. People make fun of RuneScape a lot but I like how you had "horror" themed zones and "desert" themed zones and because there wasn't a main story you could pick and choose (to a certain extent) what you wanted to do.
When I saw BOTW I immediately thought of this video
Haha that ending music brought back memories...
On a more serious thought, I feel like those two different approaches lead to sandbox MMOs vs theme park MMOs
Nintendo watched this video.
As someone who played a lot of Minecraft when I was young(er), my favorite type of game is open world and sandboxes. Probably one of the reasons I quickly became addicted to BotW. Not to say I don't enjoy linear games, but I don't find myself as emersed in it.
I'd say one of the best Sand Box kind of game is the Just Cause series, especially once they introduced the grapling hook. Let's face it you're not there for that awful story are you.
just cause -> a game where you compete with yourself to see how big of an explosion you can make
The BG theme remix outro music is AWESOME!!!
Dark Souls I would have been a better example than Dark Souls II
Diana Winters Firelink.
Dark souls 2 have a volcano ontop of a tower. Great map design :P
+Sunwakka Yeah for real
I've been reading a lot on running a megadungeon campaign with old school D&D, and how the dungeon is in fact a sandbox of exploration and player agency with minimal distractions within the dungeon about. Megadungeons actually encourage avoiding and negoiating with the monster groups therein as much as fighting with them, as recovered treasure awards the bulk of experience points. (You aren't supposed to be able to clear the whole thing out, anyway) Find treasure, get out.
But sometimes, its interesting for the players (possibly at higher levels if they haven't died yet) to spend some gold or be requested by some big wig to go to an exotic locale a get involved in a conflict that requires them to actually clear out a lair (or at least, defeat the boss/complete some other objective) with lots of set pieces that can explosively help or hinder the completion of such an adventure. (Castle Ravenloft had a Sunblade AND a deck of many things? Really?)
Basically, I'd combine megadungeon with occasional, optional modules.
Excuse me can you please talk about Legend of Zelda breath of the wild for an episode please
It'd be cool to see this revisited discussing Zelda Breath of the Wild and possibly Super Mario Odyssey
0:29
1 millionth time this image was on the show
Not anymore :(
6:00 Oh boy, the time fulfilled this expectation for sure, Elden Ring is fenomenal.
The legend of Zelda Breath of the wild did it very good!
6:10 Awww, yeah! That music brought back memories!
its breath of the wwild
a great example of modular based design is guild wars 2. Each quest inhabits an area and each area can be different
6:00 Breath of the wild.
Wind Waker too (or any Zelda game for that matter)
Honestly, you guys do a great job, and I know there's probably a good reason why it wasn't mentioned, but doesn't Guild Wars 2 sound like exactly the game you're looking forward to seeing? It is instanced, but there is an incredibly strong narrative between worlds that, even if it wasn't, and even if all the worlds looked the same, you'd see a clear distinction from one area to the next; the adventures within each area are so tightly buttoned up and so carefully crafted that the game actually feels like a single player experience until level cap.
Zelda Breath Of The Wild?
You guys should cover collectathons at some point. I miss those and would love to hear what EC thinks on the matter.
Introducing... Breath of the wild..
I think it would be cool to have something like skyrim but there are seamless zones that might challenge you in different ways than other zones. Like say for example the a certain region of skyrim had more focus on magic and then they provided lore to back it up. Then another region could be more focused on physical weaponry. Then the dungeons in those regions could also follow that code. If you aren't good at fighting magic then you should stay out of a certain region until you are strong enough. Where as if you choose to go a different skill route in a new game, you might want to be in a magic area more because you can handle that combat more.
This sounds like a TES game where the different races' homelands are all explorable. This sounds so cool.
Then Zelda Breath of The Wild, "Hold my beer"
Zelda U may well combine both the elements you were talking about. They've talked about going back to the original Zelda style of having an open world to explore and seem to be delivering but since Link to the Past all of the dungeons have had very particular themes centered around their location and the item you get there (Or need to rent/buy in Link Between Worlds).
Unsurprisingly... this is the point where I utterly disagree.
The whole module-based thing really isn't doing it right at all. The idea of having clearly defined areas with their own boundaries and all the quests (besides the main quest) contained explicitly within them feels horribly unnatural... and is not a desirable way to go about it.
The edges HAVE to be blurred together for it to work well. There has to be a sense of the land transitioning between different environments and not just abruptly flipping a switch, or else the sense of immersion is completely lost.
Similarly, there is no reason why quests shouldn't be more variable in their scatter and scope. Snowland quests, grassland quests and volcanoland quests always come across as hopelessly gimmicky... whereas the way Elder Scrolls games handle it, though not perfect, makes far more sense: Quests aren't going to be limited to a particular area, and some might require travelling, and they shouldn't be explicitly "themed" in groups. That just feels horribly wrong.
Getting lost now and again, or accidentally wandering into a dangerous area, is just part of what makes the Elder Scrolls games great. It is what really gives one a sense of scope for the world that you can't get with a bunch of strictly defined module-regions.
The take-home point here is.... if you want to make a good open-world game.... do NOT follow the advice of this video. Don't even start.
=Shrug= It worked just fine with Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, and Dragon's Dogma.
GTA San Andrea's 3 cities, Los Santos, San Fierro and Las Venturas all had defined themes to them as well.
Wildeye13 Firstly... the Baldur's Gate games were fine in their own respect... but the major disappointment with them was the module-based nature of them. The fact that it felt like I wasn't even in the same game any more when I went from one area to the next.
And Dragon's Dogma wasn't module-based... Not sure why you'd believe it was.
That's what I get for typing multiple things at one go. My bad, I only meant the 1st two Baldur's Gates.
Still, I think a module-based open world can be good if done well and it's ultimately up to the player to decide if it's their thing or not.
However, I would agree not recommending this style of game world to budding game developers because it's a style that a lot of skill and experience to pull off effectively and the bad ones do end up having all the problems you've pointed out in your original post out in the open for everyone to see and be very hard to ignore.
It just feels glaringly wrong because the world just isn't like that, and nothing about human experience is ever like that.
No matter where you go, the nature of a place will bleed into its surroundings, and people will involve themselves with other people and places outside of their own immediate vicinity. No world consisting only of clearly edge-defined "themed" zones can ever feel natural because the act of grouping things conveniently together into little compartments is a very artificial thing to do.
SotiCoto You make a great point here. I was going to "knee-jerkingly" disagree with you at first because BG1 and 2 are the sort of games I replay now and again to remind myself what a good story in an RPG feels like, but when I think about it in the terms you put here, specifically "nothing about human experience is ever like that" I can't help but agree. You see in Shadows of Amn and Throne of Baal an increased attempt to remedy that problem by putting in lines here and there to connect the adventure to your previous decisions in game and make it all blend together as a more human experience, but I think that becomes more of a development issue as the cost goes up with labyrinthine dialogue trees and scenes. On the other hand the first design philosophy of "sprinkling" can run into the same problems, if not as obviously, when we only get token acknowledgements(if that) of our previous actions in the mash of quests and towns all over the open world. All in all I think the problem you bring up here is actually less about module design and more adding a slew of side stories without making your world feel unconnected, unnatural, and exhausting. Sort of a nutshell of open world design entirely- anyhow thanks for bringing it up. 'Gave me food for thought.
I just realised Season 8 is my favourite season of Extra Credits, and to think we've come all this way from, "My name is this and today we're going to be talking about these."
Dark Cloud anyone?
Supernova141 DARK CLOUD!
Edit: And Dark Cloud 2.
I agree for the most part but with your definition of the second design style I have to bring up that Skyrim does this to a certain degree. Each of the holds has different different biomes with different plants, animals, and factions. Whiterun's hold is mostly rolling plains, Windhelm has a swamp south of it, Riften and giant lake, Falkreath has a thick deciduous forest, and Markarth is mountainous, rocky, and hilly with the Forsworn instead of bandits like other holds. These holds have similar color pallets and many design choices overlap but ultimately it seems like, to me at least, it still fits your definition to a certain degree.
5:30 to 5:45
Well Breath of the Wild proved him wrong, that's for sure.
Couldn't you do number one then divide it into section with themes, skins, different balancing, and different enemies?
Take 10 teams give each team a skeleton of the game with blank themes, basic enemies (that are universal in the game), and pre-made structures (props, lighting, etc.) but at the end get the teams together to make them flow smoothly together. We do this in Minecraft all the time. The block style and the mechanics in Minecraft are the skeleton, the mobs are the basic enemies, and we have a few universal structure layouts that we all fallow (for example this world might have a cold climate, high famine, and a few structure examples) then we give basic rules and concepts to each build team so they all run and work smoothly together, split the world into sections and go with it. Then, at the very end, neighbor teams work together so the world makes smooth transitions. We made 10 small maps that are different then smoothed them together to make a massive map.
@nintendo #breathofthewild
right now, somewhere, i hope a group of talented up and coming designers, watch this ending and go "challenge accepted."