Oh, so you are really complaining not of quest hubs (hint, Fallout games used them) but of a more linear advancement between chapters and new areas.
That’s less common, but there still games like Lands of Lore that used that system. Also some of the Gothic games, I think. Or lots of Bioware games (Kotor, Dragon age, Mass Effects games).
And lots of JRPGs, of course.
Loved both the Witcher 1 and 2. I’m actually happy to see that they’re continuing to try new things with the series. More Geralt? I’m in, Day 1.
Just imagine Witcher 1, but without loading times and where every “level” is accessible from the start.
Or think how The Witcher 2 was truly 3 mini open-worlds (Act 1 was an open world, just a small one, the same with Act 2’s). Each Act was a self contained rpg sandbox.
Now Witcher 3 will have 1 big one, instead of 3 small ones. Potentially not that different.
Thank you! This is one of my favorite forum points to disagree with. :)
I like open world sandbox RPGs too. But I hate that it’s at the expense of the last great Bioware-style cinematic RPG with believeable characters and writing. The marginal benefit of an additional open world sandbox RPG is small. The marginal benefit of one great cinematic RPG is huge – for those of us who like them. If you don’t, it probably doesn’t matter to you.
I think this came up originally talking about the Dragon Age series. Someone made the point that it didn’t matter to him if they went away from party-based tactical combat with overhead view and RTS controls. I think it’s selfish to take away the last great example of a subgenre just to add a series to a pile of similar games that one person might enjoy a little more.
Cinematic RPGs aren’t quite as doomed as AAA direct control party-based combat RPGs. At least we have Bioware.
I’m still optimistic. If they can do for Bethesda what they did for Bioware, or if they can somehow marry the two together, it will be a new pinnacle of the subgenre.
With the “one big one” 40 times as large as the 3 small ones put together! It just seems odd, doesn’t it? What a big jump.
I think you didn’t read what I was commenting about. It was about Quest hubs. For example in BG2 each “screen” or diorama as you put it was not all that big, however, you had many of them to visit and you didn’t go to one of these areas, do a bunch of quests and then a new area unlocked. You had the entire city to explore.
I am not commenting on the whole scale of each area or total amount of content. In these games it did not feel like you were stuck in a quest hub even though your “world” might have only been as big as a quest hub in a modern game.
No I read it and understood it.
What I think you’re not understanding here is that you’re wrong.
I believe this could well be RPG of the year. 'Nuff said.
Well I’m operating under the assumption that CD Projekt are going to maintain the level of story telling in the earlier Witcher games.
However, that being said, I’m a bit tired of the cinematic conversation style that BioWare uses in every game. Characters either stand rooted in place or do this forced walk back-and-forth canned animation that drives me nuts!
I actually much prefer the style that Skyrim introduced, where NPCs go about their local business while talking to you. It was a bit rough but I think it’s the right approach to pursue (converstation content aside, of course).
I think part of this is that the dirty little secret no one likes to talk about is Bioware is just not very good at staging and animating a cinematic scene.
The points and concerns being raised about The Witcher 3 being an open world game are valid, but I tend to agree with those like Nithrakis who would argue CD Projekt is likely keeping the story telling elements, but there will just be a larger stage for all that stuff. As mentioned before, really Act 1, 2, and 3 in TW2 are actually big open world areas, seperated by locale. If you could run from the forests of act 1 into the act 3 areas of TW2 super early in the game, but be facing enemies you were way outclassed by, there really might not be much of a difference from what they are planning now.
J
It’s a big jump, agreed, I’m also worried they can lose some focus and quality of the content because the change. TW2 was a small world but high quality and with unique content.
But they said the world is 40 times bigger, not that the game is 40 times bigger or there will be 40 times more content.
I’m thinking they will use a more realistic topography and distribution of content, that would explain the size while still maintaining a realistic vision of what amount of game they can do.
The worst thing they could do is put a lot of inane “activities” to fill up the bigger world and try to give us quantity instead of quality in the quests.
I agree. I’m sure it’s also a herculean amount of effort to do. Bethesda must save a tremendous amount of time by using existing systems/A.I. They suffer in areas like facial animation but make up for it with natural behaviour (well, Bethesday AI quirks aside… ;) )
True, but aren’t those areas combined are still much smaller than Skyrim? I did read that they doubled the team so perhaps they have a shot at a Bethesda scale game.
To be honest, I suspect the mega success of Skyrim is doing a influence in the RPG development scene. I doubt the change is a coincidence. Same with Dragon Age 3, which seems it will be an open world.
I fail to see how that’s a bad thing.
Wild Hunt sounds great, though, I think I’d like to play a different Witcher. I why can’t I have casual sex? I’m a fantasy James Bond, ffs. Boo.
And yet they’re still better than CDProjekt. I played The Witcher 2 soon after Dragon Age 2. I was surprised how most of the characters stood rooted in place.
It doesn’t really matter. The characters and events and writing in TW2 brought the scene to life more than any animations did. The best part of DA2’s writing was the interaction between party members as you were walking around the world. They were just talking to each other.
Bioware should do a small talk simulator, that’s my conclusion.
This is all I’m worried about. We gamers like to worry. We’re well aware of the three-way tradeoff in RPGs between scope, intimacy, and development time. We fret when someone threatens to change what isn’t broken. I’m just being a geek.
I think Bioware made me a little neurotic about change. They tend to overreact to criticism in each new game. Each development team wants to make their own mark. Sometimes they mess with the good things.
Actually, it’s not quite the same. Bioware has the same formulaic framework, but keeps breaking the small stuff. I trust CDP to find the right balance among those subsystems and game mechanics. That huge list of bullet points? I’m not worried. They’re welcome to go nuts. (Goodbye, my sweet dodge roll.) But this is still a young developer with stars in their eyes. Combining quality with breadth is the holy grail of RPGs. I hope they know what they’re doing.
Now that I’ve voiced my concern, I’m ready to kick back and enjoy the hype. I do love wide games because all the “empty space” really sets the atmosphere. Walking and travel put me in the right mood for a fantasy RPG.
It will be in interesting to see how DA3 turns out as BioWare is also going more open world next time around.
But yes, I’d like to see more depth and quality of story in an open world RPG. This is Bethesda’s greatest weakness. They do background lore stuff pretty good but it rarely translates into great plotlines.
That’s my worry as well. I love Skyrim for what it is and I love Witcher 2 for entirely different reasons. There’s a tradeoff between open-world do whatever you want games and tightly scripted intimate stories. I’ve yet to see an open-world game successfully handle the kind of storytelling that Witcher 2 had. Red Dead Redemption came very close, but even that game had to fill the world with side activities and collection tasks that lost any sense of urgency between missions. Go rescue my family? Pshaw! I have boar skins to gather!