World Exploration...Yay or Nay, Big or Small

[EvoG]

This question might be best aimed at those that don't abhor 1st/3rd person games, but it can work across the board even though I am referring to those perspectives.

Exploration is a big part of gameplay for me, which is why I gravitate strongly to open-world games. I like to look at structures, lighting, terrain variety, hidden places, etc. I love it when there's a strong mix of verticality so I can gain high ground perspective of the surrounded environ. I enjoy being surrounded by the world that I'm free to explore in any direction. I'd be satisfied with doing little else beyond this for large chunks of time if there was something to see as I looked around so...

...assuming for a moment you guys enjoy that aspect as well what are your criteria for ultimately satisfying exploration?

• Do you like large worlds, where locations are farther apart and there were a lot of natural filler terrain?
  
• Do you like small worlds where its quick to get from location to location, with little to no filler, where every area was unique?
  
• Do you like to get lost?
  
• Do you like to find hidden areas based on distance or based on simply being hidden by occlusion of large objects or general object density?

...and so on. The idea is to gauge what makes the world feel satisfying to 'live' in. This was inspired by the Ultima talk in that other thread, thinking of the virtues of the open world structure in Ultima 7. I even know a few people that just want to jump from key location to key location, in whichever order they choose mind you, but they just want to get 'to it' versus experiencing the world and exploring.


Cheers

 

[Vault Dweller]

Do you like large worlds, where locations are farther apart and there were a lot of natural filler terrain?

Depends. If the terrain is just a filler to make the world larger, then no. If the terrain is interactive and crossing it takes skills and knowledge (other than battling monsters), then yes.

Do you like small worlds where its quick to get from location to location, with little to no filler, where every area was unique?

Yes.

Do you like to get lost?

Yes.

Do you like to find hidden areas based on distance or based on simply being hidden by occlusion of large objects or general object density?

Yes.

Edit: I would like to play a game where getting from point A to point B is as challenging as exploring a tough dungeon; where you may try to reach town X several times, but will be forced to turn back; where there is a reason to seek protection of guarded caravans that may not take you exactly where you want to go, etc.

 

[kingcomrade]

I like to look at structures, lighting, terrain variety, hidden places, etc.

If the graphics whore factor is high enough I do too. A skilled level designer can evoke some really great environments. The little I've seen of Oblivion leads me to believe that it doesn't. Quite a few levels in Unreal Tournament 2k3 (and some in 2k4) were really cool looking and stimulated my imagination (red alert man the battlestations damn the torpedoes).

* Do you like large worlds, where locations are farther apart and there were a lot of natural filler terrain?

Nope. I like the Fallout style for large worlds. Filler terrain should be filled in by a map in most cases. Obviously there can be exceptions like VD stated.

* Do you like small worlds where its quick to get from location to location, with little to no filler, where every area was unique?

Yes.

* Do you like to get lost?

Usually, no. I like exploring, but if I'm trying to get somewhere and I fail that is usually really annoying.

* Do you like to find hidden areas based on distance or based on simply being hidden by occlusion of large objects or general object density?

Both.

edit
You know, you really made me think about that game Freelancer. It wasn't that good game but I remember playing multiplayer and I absolutely loved exploring in that game. THey had so many different areas and ideas, pritty graphics to back it all up, etc. Finding hidden space stations and jump gates was always really cool, but then disappointing because there wasn't really much of a reward for finding it. Maybe a few specialized pieces of equipment but the way they did equipment in that game was really gay.

 

[MisterStone]

Do you like large worlds, where locations are farther apart and there were a lot of natural filler terrain?

Depends. If the terrain is just a filler to make the world larger, then no. If the terrain is interactive and crossing it takes skills and knowledge (other than battling monsters), then yes.


Edit: I would like to play a game where getting from point A to point B is as challenging as exploring a tough dungeon; where you may try to reach town X several times, but will be forced to turn back; where there is a reason to seek protection of guarded caravans that may not take you exactly where you want to go, etc.

I agree with VD, and I think one way to make exploration, etc. worthwhile is to include survival and puzzle elements into travel... such as the need for food, the need for certain kinds of equipment to get over to certain terrain and access special areas (not just a quest item that opens up a new section of the world, mind you, just equipment you need to find and perhaps save up cash to afford, such as a boat, climbing gear, etc.) To continue my unending blather about 80's era video games I played on the Apple II, Wasteland and Ultima IV and V were good in this regard... I recall that you had to work hard or find some information to get your hands on things like a boat, hot air balloon, rad suits, etc. Hmm, maybe those were more like quest items...

Generally speaking, I think that the travel in the Fallout series was pretty damn lame. The encounters between areas were sometimes interesting, though. I can't recall another game where a random encounter might give you the chance to trade with someone, or perhaps even prostitute yourself (in the case of FO II). Still, this was only fun the first couple of times I came across it.

 

[MountainWest]

Do you like large worlds, where locations are farther apart and there were a lot of natural filler terrain?

Don't know what counts as "a lot". But I'm playing Ultima 5: Lazarus right now and it fits my preference in filler/key location-ratio pretty perfect. Awesome game.

Do you like small worlds where its quick to get from location to location, with little to no filler, where every area was unique?

Both can be fun. But I prefer, for example, the open worlds of Gothic 3 and Lazarus VS area-based worlds like Baldurs Gate and Neverwinter nights.

Do you like to get lost?

No. The other way around really, I want my automap as detailed as possible.

Do you like to find hidden areas based on distance or based on simply being hidden y occlusion of large objects or general object density?

Both. I'm fine as long as there's a good reason to why they're hidden (depending on what "they" are, naturally).

 

[HardCode]

* Do you like large worlds, where locations are farther apart and there were a lot of natural filler terrain?

Yes, as long as there are things to do in between. An endless run of graphikz with no game content quite often leads to boredom quickly. Ideally, most of the content would be randomized - at least random in physical location - for replay value.

Do you like small worlds where its quick to get from location to location, with little to no filler, where every area was unique?

It depends on the size of the destination locations. If they are huge, sprawling cities with tons of things to do, then that is fine. If the destination locations are like in KotOR, well, they are just to small and they are too quick to complete. World map (outer space) activity in between locations would have served the game better.

Do you like to get lost?

Yes, as long there is enough interesting game content to stumble across (see point #1). What I don't like is getting lost like in G3 in Nordmar. Not much to find except more wolves and sabre tooth tigers. And even finding the path to the villages was difficult. This was bad.

Do you like to find hidden areas based on distance or based on simply being hidden by occlusion of large objects or general object density?

I think "hidden" areas should make sense to the game world. For example, there shouldn't be a hidden temple right outside of a major city, but perhaps there is a hidden little cave where a town criminal could be hiding. Also, that same hidden temple shouldn't be just 10 feet off of the road. That hidden temple should be further away from a populated area, else it wouldn't be hidden for long. However, dialog or in-game lore should provide clues to the temple's existence some of the time. Other times, it could be completely found by accident.

 

[Monica21]

• Do you like large worlds, where locations are farther apart and there were a lot of natural filler terrain?

• 
  Depends on if the filler has a purpose. If it's just a lot of nothing, then no. And by "purpose" I don't mean a sandbox like Oblivion, where you stumble on a cave or ruin every now and then. Finding quests is different.
  
  

  [*]Do you like small worlds where its quick to get from location to location, with little to no filler, where every area was unique?

  Yes.
  
  

  [*]Do you like to get lost?

  Yes.
  
  

  [*]Do you like to find hidden areas based on distance or based on simply being hidden by occlusion of large objects or general object density?

Yes, but it helps a great deal if there's something unique about the hidden area. A cave hidden behind a waterfall is pointless unless it's special.

 

[galsiah]

I like open worlds where they feel coherent, and support adventure - with all the significant unpredictability, wonder and surprise that entails. "Set out for X... kill some guys... continue... kill some guys... grab loot... continue... find a cave... kill some guys... grab loot... continue... arrive at X." has all the adventure of accountancy.
To the extent that "adventure" in an open world is uniform/predictable, it's a waste of time (or at least not an adventure).

 

[EvoG]

Alright, I think the replies are what I expected, and in hindsight I probably should have clarified a bit more. Its like if I asked "do you want more money or less money?" I assumed everyone would always vote for more content versus less. :D

Alright, first off, what you suggested VD, about exploration that has challenge is spot on how I like mine, and with the inclusion of elements such as skill level or items impeding a journey down a particular path, thats very zelda-esque. Love it or hate it, they do know how to do staggered exploration. I'm also a big fan of stumbling across something that will hand my ass to me, making that eventual trip all the more enticing later on.

Now, regarding the 'options' I suggested:

By large world with natural filler refers to 'scenic'. Assume for a moment the environment was attractive, reasonalby detailed but more or less just what you'd expect hiking around. You'll come across spots of man made elements, but its serves more to establish setting and to give ground to the far-away places (e.g. your hidden temple). The reason this exists is that its difficult, as a developer, to establish distance, size and scope, but then to hand-craft unique content for every square acre.

Small world with greater density is effectively all of the unique content from the larger world in the above paragraph, all relatively close to eachother, so there is very little scenic hikes, and you're running across story/quest related environments rather quickly. Think of Fable, again regardless if you love or hate it, it did a great job of creating these small dioramas of a fantasy world and every area was unique and interesting to look at; there were no filler areas. This is the primary reason I'm excited about Fable 2, is that now we can get those types of environments but in one larger seamless package, but I digress. The benefit here is that the developer only need focus on the interesting areas, and doesn't have to manage a huge world dataset, but he loses that 'epic journey' feel.

Now, by getting "lost", I dont mean the negative connotation, but rather the fact that the world is large and complex that you can wander aimlessly, looking for stuff without intimate regard to your immediate location. Obviously you'd have an automap that you could check at will, but rather the point of being lost is that it doesn't matter, its fullfilling enough to look for shit regardless of location or focus. This is tied intimately with the large world size above, as its much harder of course to get "lost" in a tightly hand crafted world.

Hardcode hit upon what I think of when I talk of hidden locations based on distance. Correctly stated, the temple would not be 10 feet from the main road, so by that logic, you'd have to insist on the larger world with scenic filler just to make the locating of the temple all the more rewarding. This is one of the things I struggle with in development, as I'm a huge proponent of discovery, especially when it requires some real wandering, not just looking at the horizon, seeing the outline of a military base or dead city, and just pointing the character in that direction.

Ultimately yes, all things being equal, there would always be purpose to the exploration, and there would always be side narratives or clues that would hint at the existence of such places and that the act of exploration would be fraught with peril, skill and item usage, and more than simply traveling from A to B.


Edited for spelling

 

[EvoG]

...To the extent that "adventure" in an open world is uniform/predictable, it's a waste of time (or at least not an adventure).

I'm feeling you mean Oblivion, and yes I'd have to agree completely. The moment I learned the world leveled with me and every ruin and cave I found would be artisticaly IDENTICAL to the last, that ruined exploration for me.

 

[GRRRR]

Small worlds focused on very few detailed locations always feel kinda confined and limited to me, you want more of it but there isnt any, kinda like "we only can show you this small slice of the cake" (and that feeling increases the more detailed said world is). There always should be some "terrain filler". However, beyond only looking good (Ooh great looking mountains. Just like the other 200 times i walked by!) that filler should provide reasonable transition (village->grassland->badland->ebil temple) between locations and optimally both obstacles and the lack thereof (swamp to reach the ebil temple/orc roadblock/having to gulp Rad-X or whatever vs nice easy road to village) to reach the real points of interest and not just be 12000 square miles of grass and speedtree so someone can say "woah this game is huge". And if the filler has small bits n pieces to find on its own (even if they are not up to the usual heroic epicness of entering dragons lairs and whatnot), all the better. In the "worldmap" game category BG1 did this well (mostly) and Gothic 2 in the "3D world" category.

As for getting lost, before your clarification id have said "not in stupid mazes with random blob encounters every 2 steps", now, yeah can be fun. Like its been said, requires an interesting enough world with "good filler" tho.

Hidden by distance or occlusion? Both. :D

 

[Top Hat]

[*]Do you like large worlds, where locations are farther apart and there were a lot of natural filler terrain?

Yes, but I'm the type of person who's a natural explorer anyway. I also think that due to "eating" not being fun (despite what they apparently think over at the Elder Scrolls Forums) character/party upkeep has been removed from RPGs to their detriment, since the only risk with exploration (if any) ends up being "YOU WILL BE KILL BY DEMONS". Perhaps planning for a long trek should be some kind of skill for a character?

Of course, you can put in some public transportation or something between regions (which can be waylaid by thieves and monsters, of course). However, you could have quests based on mapping a previously unexplored area (like what was in one of the Fabled Lands gamebooks) or on setting up trade routes and such.

Really, the majority of current RPGs are terribly lame due to the fact that characters all seem to be required to carry swords and blunt axes up their asses. There's basically nothing in the way of non-violent questing.

[*]Do you like small worlds where its quick to get from location to location, with little to no filler, where every area was unique?

It really depends on what you mean by unique. If you mean that every place has a different architecture, etc., then that's just absurd - if your character is visiting all of these disparate places (and the "first contact" isn't part of the game) then there would have been at least some kind of trade which usually causes cultural blending/adaptation to occur.

There are always going to be little differences from region to region, but assuming that you are making a world rather than some disconnected region of "cool ideas" there are going to be pockets with small cross-overs between the larger centers.

"Passive quests" (quests where you just find clues that your character has to figure out how to put together) don't work as well in a region-jumping game for some, since the clues will be scattered all over the place; and if you knew where all of the zones were then it would be more like running through a checklist rather than searching.

[*]Do you like to get lost?

Yes. I think it would be interesting if, while resting, (one of) your character(s) gets dumped in the middle of nowhere with nothing and they have to figure out where they are and how to get back (home/to the rest of the party). Not all the time, of course.

[*]Do you like to find hidden areas based on distance or based on simply being hidden by occlusion of large objects or general object density?

Both.

 

[Section8]

Good thread. I have to say that I'm a big fan of exploration myself, and that's the biggest reason I've played Morrowind more than Oblivion, and also the reason Morrowind seems to find it's way back onto my hard-drive fairly frequently. In fact, this thread has made me want reinstall it and create an explorer character named Patti Hearst.

I do like large worlds, and definitely prefer them over artificially shrunken worlds with the same interactive density. But there's always a balance. I think most MMOs stirke it pretty well, and Morrowind fucking nailed it.

However, I feel I should also point out that I don't just explore to see new things necessarily. I explore so my character can discover things. So in that sense, eye candy holds little appeal unless it's tied to narrative and lore. For instance, the Daedric Ruins and Sixth House caves in Morrowind were pretty exciting to discover, since there were little "archaeological" clues. By looking at chunks of rotting flesh, strange apparatus, and what not, I can let my imagination run in pondering the inhabitants.

There's also the potential gain that drives me. The idea of finding something "of worth" out in the middle of nowhere is appealing. And that could be anything from better equipment/spells to a dress-up option that can't be found elsewhere. As long as I feel my efforts in exploration are rewarding in some way (trivial though it may be) I can spend a lot of time doing just that.

As for small worlds, they really fit into a different gaming ideal for me. As I mentioned before, if it's just an artificially scaled world with the same interaction density, the game doesn't draw me in as much. Oblivion and Gothic 3 both suffer from this problem, because the proximity of cities, and places to be "discovered" are implausibly close. Why has nobody explored that ruin that is within throwing distance of the city walls? Gothic 3 fares a little better than Oblivion in this respect, just because it has genuinely prohibitive circumstances (well, monsters) around many locations.

Now, a small world ideally ought to have less density of interaction, but more depth. Gothic 1 and 2 capture this ideal pretty well. With few major settlements, they become fleshed out to a much larger degree, and there's a much improved social element. My ultimate game is still an RPG set in a limited environment with an ensemble cast of no more than a dozen.

Getting Lost? Love it. As long as there's a reasonable means to find my way again (I'll settle for a rough compass bearing) I really enjoy being out in the wilds with no safety net. It places a greater emphasis on preparedness, and generally results in a memorable personal narrative, by the time you find your way back to civilisation, beaten, bloodied, with armour that's falling apart, an empty quiver, empty stomach, etc. Even better if you have to "live off the land" at some point, eating random berries or scratching around for something you desperately need.

Given that most RPGs have a completely unbalanced economy, and some fairly immediate ways to spend your ill-gotten gains, then isolating the player from that immediacy provides not only a great challenge, but a more rewarding experience when they do get a taste of civilisation again. In other words, a true adventure, as has been mentioned a couple of times here already.

I think far too many developers underestimate the power of "unique" gameplay experiences. Like saving of replays in sports games, to capture those one of a kind moments to either relive yourself, or show off to your friends, there's a lot to be said for the "fisherman's tales" of emergent narrative. When I think of the absolute best games I've ever played, each one has war stories I could gladly share as a drunken old man down at the local.

 

[EvoG]

Yes, but I'm the type of person who's a natural explorer anyway. I also think that due to "eating" not being fun (despite what they apparently think over at the Elder Scrolls Forums) character/party upkeep has been removed from RPGs to their detriment, since the only risk with exploration (if any) ends up being "YOU WILL BE KILL BY DEMONS". Perhaps planning for a long trek should be some kind of skill for a character?

I think I'm in the category of "eating not fun" ever since the Ultima days of "I'm hungry" and the timeless "I'm starving". I 'get' what you're talking about, but at the end of the day with regards to gaming abstract, hunger is akin to being poisoned, another convention I dislike. But used proactively, I think food should slightly improve your abilities (not superpowers mind you), but rather reward the player for eating or other like maintainance rather than punish for forgetting or not being interested. In other words, player doesn't eat, nothing at all adverse occurs...he eats consistently, he notices his stats are a tiny bit higher. I say a tiny bit as really, eating is important in real life, but in a game its translates into little effort on the part of the player and thus a little reward should suffice and perhaps encourgae such play.

Of course, you can put in some public transportation or something between regions (which can be waylaid by thieves and monsters, of course). However, you could have quests based on mapping a previously unexplored area (like what was in one of the Fabled Lands gamebooks) or on setting up trade routes and such.

I'm a fan of vehicle transport and I'm a bigger fan of 'unexplored' areas, so this is in line with a 'large world'.

It really depends on what you mean by unique. If you mean that every place has a different architecture, etc., then that's just absurd - if your character is visiting all of these disparate places (and the "first contact" isn't part of the game) then there would have been at least some kind of trade which usually causes cultural blending/adaptation to occur.

Well no not absurd, as most games do this; they are called levels. I used Fable as my measure of this concept in my second post. I'm not referring to a disconnection geographically or societal when I say unique, but rather the term applies to what we call "hero objects". An important object, building, location, etc that defines an area. You'd still see progression geographically, but rather than large areas of rocks and trees that may look similar, you'd see interesting, hand crafted structures ripe for further exploration. In large world games, you'll go for some time before hitting unique structures, like our hidden temple above.

"Passive quests" (quests where you just find clues that your character has to figure out how to put together) don't work as well in a region-jumping game for some, since the clues will be scattered all over the place; and if you knew where all of the zones were then it would be more like running through a checklist rather than searching.

Right, and yes I'm referring to open-world games only...freedom to go whereever whenever.

Yes. I think it would be interesting if, while resting, (one of) your character(s) gets dumped in the middle of nowhere with nothing and they have to figure out where they are and how to get back (home/to the rest of the party). Not all the time, of course.

I'm thinking you didn't catch my second post above. :D



Cheers

 

[EvoG]

...interactive density.

Hey goddamnit, thats my term that I stole from Steve Ince! Enough of your plagerism foul beast! Hehe...

...in other words I agree wholeheartedly. :D

However, I feel I should also point out that I don't just explore to see new things necessarily. I explore so my character can discover things. So in that sense, eye candy holds little appeal unless it's tied to narrative and lore. For instance, the Daedric Ruins and Sixth House caves in Morrowind were pretty exciting to discover, since there were little "archaeological" clues. By looking at chunks of rotting flesh, strange apparatus, and what not, I can let my imagination run in pondering the inhabitants.

Sorry, I thought I cleared this up in my second post. Absolutely that what you find is in and of itself interesting, interactive and a part of the world narrative, be it a major, minor, or side plot point. Yea I'm not referring to simply visual elements. I'm a big fan of archaeological clues and otherwise subtle hints that require you to put for the initiative rather than have any prodding whatsoever, like the Xfiles quest in Arcanum.

There's also the potential gain that drives me. The idea of finding something "of worth" out in the middle of nowhere is appealing. And that could be anything from better equipment/spells to a dress-up option that can't be found elsewhere. As long as I feel my efforts in exploration are rewarding in some way (trivial though it may be) I can spend a lot of time doing just that.

Absolutely. Always encourage the gameplay through reward. If it looks inaccessible or difficult to reach or find, and the player makes that effort, there must be 'something'. Hell I'd go as far to put it that one-of-a-kind items are found, so not only are you rewarded with something, you get a 'something' that can't be had anywhere else. Even better when it offers some substantial gameplay element.

As for small worlds, they really fit into a different gaming ideal for me. As I mentioned before, if it's just an artificially scaled world with the same interaction density, the game doesn't draw me in as much. Oblivion and Gothic 3 both suffer from this problem, because the proximity of cities, and places to be "discovered" are implausibly close. Why has nobody explored that ruin that is within throwing distance of the city walls? Gothic 3 fares a little better than Oblivion in this respect, just because it has genuinely prohibitive circumstances (well, monsters) around many locations.

Thats the primary thing I struggle with...when size is so great it allows for some really distance places, but is hard to manage as a developer because you have to fill all that with 'something' reasonably interesting until you get to said places. Oblivion does better than most, and from what little I saw of Gothic 3, it seemed to do a bit better, but I know exactly what you mean.

Now, a small world ideally ought to have less density of interaction, but more depth.

I always gave the interaction density credit for an areas depth, among other things.

Even better if you have to "live off the land" at some point, eating random berries or scratching around for something you desperately need.

I like that too, but I meant something less 'surviorman'...see my second post above. :D

I think far too many developers underestimate the power of "unique" gameplay experiences. Like saving of replays in sports games, to capture those one of a kind moments to either relive yourself, or show off to your friends, there's a lot to be said for the "fisherman's tales" of emergent narrative. When I think of the absolute best games I've ever played, each one has war stories I could gladly share as a drunken old man down at the local.

Amen. Thanks section, I always appreciate it when you participate in these threads.


Cheers

 

[galsiah]

I think I'm in the category of "eating not fun" ever since the Ultima days of "I'm hungry" and the timeless "I'm starving". I 'get' what you're talking about, but at the end of the day with regards to gaming abstract, hunger is akin to being poisoned, another convention I dislike. But used proactively, I think food should slightly improve your abilities (not superpowers mind you), but rather reward the player for eating or other like maintainance rather than punish for forgetting or not being interested. In other words, player doesn't eat, nothing at all adverse occurs...he eats consistently, he notices his stats are a tiny bit higher. I say a tiny bit as really, eating is important in real life, but in a game its translates into little effort on the part of the player and thus a little reward should suffice and perhaps encourgae such play.

I'm not a fan of this attitude to eating. If it's included at all (which it needn't be), it should be something significant. There should be no maintenance aspect to it at all - if the PC has food, or has simple access to it, eating should be automatic, or assumed (no hunting in inventory for rations; no foraging where success is a formality with no consequence; no required lunching in safe towns...).
The challenging aspect should be emphasized - i.e. where there is little easy access, and obtaining food requires tough decisions / overcoming danger.

Eating is not the problem - any uninteresting, maintenance task is just as bad. The problem is failure to keep it interesting / challenging. Eating should be about e.g. being pursued through harsh environments, unable to obtain food from a hostile populace, either hunting potentially deadly animals, or risking capture by spending the time (game time, not real time) to forage....
Any game mechanic needs to offer interesting, significant choices. Where required eating creates such situations, it's an asset.

Turning a dull, maintenance mechanic with penalties, into a dull optional maintenance mechanic with fairly meaningless bonuses, is a poor excuse for a solution. Lack of food should be a consequence of a harsh environment (in whatever sense), forcing hard decisions. It should not be a consequence of the player's forgetting to click the "order pizza" button, forcing obvious-but-dull behaviour.
Don't blame the concept for the horrible implementations.

 

[EvoG]

Well you're looking at it as a "solution" to a "problem" that doesn't exist first off. Solving automatic camera adjustment for a platformer is a "problem"...making sure your AI doesn't freeze up when a physics based object blocks his pathfinding is a "problem, but something like eating is purely design.

Either way, you wrote a rather lengthy post about my usage(or misusage) of the word "maintainance" galsiah. :D I'm perfectly fine with making it automatic and in fact would rather it be like this...I was more concerned with the fact that eating in the older games was a punishment, like being poisoned versus being a reward for participating in the dynamic.

For the sake of argument now, IF this were a survival game, like Lost in Blue on the DS, then I'd agree that food gathering and eating is a crucial gameplay mechanic, and your ideas in your second paragraph are perfect. There was a point a long time ago where I was toying with the idea of there being a vast wasteland between two important places, and managing your survival was going to be a part of that experience to contrast the otherwise easier going portions of the world. I'm still all for that, but balance in that case is very important. It should be less about making the player scavenge and failing and more about the player being able to make concious choices and understanding the mechanic so he can master it. Randomizing the survival would trivialize it and make it very unfun.

Either way, I see your passionate about food in your games, so I'll make sure to have that as an option in the gameplay settings. :D


EDIT: Now that it came to the fore, how many of you would like some level of actual survival in an RPG? Perhaps as I joked, there can be settings to determine level of survival:

"I'm a hero, I need no food!"
"I'm hungry"
"I'm John T. Rourke!"

:D

 

[Section8]

I think I'm in the category of "eating not fun" ever since the Ultima days of "I'm hungry" and the timeless "I'm starving". I 'get' what you're talking about, but at the end of the day with regards to gaming abstract, hunger is akin to being poisoned, another convention I dislike.

The way I see character maintainence in an RPG is basically the way I see resource gathering in an RTS. If you had to direct your peons back and forth between gold mine and town hall in Warcraft, rather than simply automating them, then it would be a painful drag on gameplay. That doesn't mean the concept out to be scrapped, just developed to automate the tedious bits, and allow broader management strategy as an extra layer to the game.

Now of course, in an RTS, resource management is a core facet of the "genre" while it's fluff for an RPG. Certainly not essential, but like adding statistical progression and experience points to a sports game, it's another layer for the player to fuck with, and hopefully have some fun with.

 

[EvoG]

Now of course, in an RTS, resource management is a core facet of the "genre" while it's fluff for an RPG. Certainly not essential, but like adding statistical progression and experience points to a sports game, it's another layer for the player to fuck with, and hopefully have some fun with.

Oh I agree, I just want to make sure its not arbitrarily punishing. In Lost Planet that just came out, you have T-Energy that constantly ticks down, effectively when you lose all Thermal Energy, you freeze to death within 30 seconds. You 'recharge' your T-Eng by killing the indigenous lifeforms and collect their glowing orbs of T-Eng. This works well enough since you're never at a loss for things to kill, encourages you to do 'better' in your killing to acquire the precious energy quicker than it depletes (overhead vs. profit), but wouldn't encourage exploration unless you had alternate sources for the energy. As it is, you must fight to stay alive. It didn't enhance the gameplay as much as it added tension, which has value sure.

In GTA:SA, you dont have to eat, but if you do, you maintain muscle mass and stamina. This is positive reinforcement, as while you're not punished much for not eating, you are rewarded with a better performing CJ for participating. Just like we kill enemies for loot and XP, here we'd eat to gain performance enhancements in the guise of 'survival'.

The concept, if you guys will bear with the idea, assumes you're in a constant state of survival, just like any combat game. You manage your health that depletes on damage. When you are damaged, its not arbitary; you understand why you were damaged and can try to avoid it next time. With survival in this case, instead of specifying the needs of survival, you participate in the 'benefits' of proper survival. I know the lot of you may toss up your hands in frustration, but just think about it. As long as there are tangible benefits to proper survival, you can enjoy the dynamic of the gameplay, but ignore it if you just want to jump in and maybe advance the story a bit before bed. What tangible benefits? What if you gained greater damage resistance by properly maintaining your food intake? Instead of just losing HP, you actually gain constitution or resistance to damage, enough so that it matters and you say "hmm, hell I'm gonna always hunt/scavenge/carry food to keep this benefit!". This works well because a good combat player may be able to avoid taking some damage, but he can make dangerous treks deeper into unfavorable territory better if he packs a lunch, as 'you never know'. This makes the play proactive (he wants to participate) and rewards rather than punishes.

Now, and not to get TOO far of topic, but do we want food to take up weight and inventory space? Thats another level of managment that require some thought. With a system like this, he's not being punished for NOT having food, so he might want to risk it, and take more ammo or that big ass machine gun in place of the food. Now he's managing his play the way he wants, and anticpating what trials he sees, not being dictated again, arbitrarily by design. I think this choice weighs favorably for the inclusion of the food system as much as it does taking more haste potions versus health potions in a fantasy game.

Sorry, but lets talk about both this and the topic, but if anyone new to the conversation has some input on the OP, feel free as I dont think we exhausted it and it will probably bring out more conversations like this one about food. Oh and make sure you read all the posts, as I've had to make some clarifications on my 'wording'.


Cheers

 

[galsiah]

I was more concerned with the fact that eating in the older games was a punishment

Sure, but if this - in those games - is a problem...
...then this:

versus being a reward for participating in the dynamic.

Is a very poor solution. Dressing up a boring non-decision by adding a reward for "participating" is just bad design. If it's a dull, non-decision of a mechanic, it needs removing, not rewarding.

Either eating is an interesting and important part of gameplay (e.g. a game with significant and challenging wilderness survival), or it isn't. If it is, eating belongs in the game. If it isn't, it doesn't.
Adding it as an "option for those who like it" (not that I hope you're a serious advocate for this), just means it's cosmetic and essentially unsupported. Giving it minor gameplay significance (whether through punishment, or reward - essentially the same thing) just makes things worse, since not using the dull mechanic is punished.

Perhaps as I joked, there can be settings to determine level of survival:

"I'm a hero, I need no food!"
"I'm hungry"
"I'm John T. Rourke!"

Bad idea. Do it properly, or don't do it. If it can simply be removed from the game without upsetting things, it didn't belong there in the first place. Getting survival mechanics to work really well would be a great challenge. Any developer willing to remove them with the flick of a switch can't have done things properly.
It ought to be viewed similarly to "Should we add an option to toggle combat?". Games where you want that option are games where combat sucks horribly. Options for difficulty of combat / food requirements are clearly fine. There just shouldn't be a "Turn it off" option.

 

[dagorkan]

Personally I'm not sure I like exploration that much. I'm more into RPGs for plot development, interesting dialog, making my mark on the NPCs etc. Wondering around looking at landscapes, no matter how beautifully designed is at the bottom of the list of how I want to spend my time.

So anyway:

"Large world, locations further apart, natural filler terrain:

Morrowind? No I want to interact. If you spend 70% of your time walking/running through an non-interactive environment you're not playing an RPG. Morrowind was beautiful but after the first few minutes in a region I was already tired of it.

"Small worlds where it is quick to move between locations, each area is unique"

More like Fallout then? Yes that is preferable.

"Do you like to get lost?"

If getting lost can be made worthwhile/interesting. In other words if it can lead to new plot developments, finding a new faction or whatever (not the secret cave of uber lewt) and there's a good chance of that happening once you got lost (not one in a million chance). Getting lost for the sake of it, no thanks.

"Hidden areas - distance or simple occlusion"

If there is a point to 'getting lost' and it's not that unlikely to find the place then I prefer distance than some artificial Bioware type thing. I think it's because it makes more sense.

Overall personally I think the NWN/BG is the absolute worst world exploration system. The map are ugly, small and on an unrealistic scale but also take forever to explore because of the shitty isometric interface and stupid obstacles they stick everywhere to make you take the long way around.

My ideal is Realms of Arkania. Hundreds of locations (described by text/descriptions/encounters), some of them unique, but easy and quick to get between. Random encounters could occur anywhere between locations and a randomized combat map would be selected for them. Travel should be through menu options. Minimalize mouse clicking/button pressing wherever possible.

Arcanum was an acceptable compromise (mostly). You could explore the whole map tile-by-tile if you had no life or travel quickly through the world map interrupted by random encounters/discovery of new locations. Your position on the world map at any time corresponded to a unique piece of wilderness but you didn't have to see it or scroll/click through it.

 

[galsiah]

In GTA:SA, you dont have to eat, but if you do, you maintain muscle mass and stamina. This is positive reinforcement, as while you're not punished much for not eating...

It's a dull gimmick included largely for cosmetic reasons (fine in a GTA-type game). This shouldn't be viewed as an option in a game with strong survival elements.

I know the lot of you may toss up your hands in frustration, but just think about it.

I have, and it sucks horribly. It's fine as a little inconsequential add-on mechanic once you've decided to add food for colour. If you're taking things seriously [EDIT: by which I mean "a game with serious survival elements" - not taking design seriously], it sucks.

Players don't usually like it because they're being punished for forgetting to do something dull a few hours ago. This is dislike of a shit implementation - whether or not the focus group tells you that "Forced eating is bad: Make it optional!!1!!!1".
If you're including it, make it a difficult, challenging, life-and-death decision - not an excuse to show the player your wondrous hamburger graphic.

 

[EvoG]

Well to be perfectly honest galsiah, this thread wasn't even about food or survival. You seem pretty negative towards my suggestions and while I understand what you're saying you don't like, and agree generally, I'd say offer up some suggestions as to what you would see working. Thats ultimately more beneficial than simply saying something is bad.

With regards to 'options', I have to disagree, as not everyone has the same tastes. No different than difficulty settings that most games have, having levels of survival is a perfectly reasonable thing for people that may want to give it a try, but are more interested in the world and the story. The original System Shock for example did just fine offering various levels of Combat, Story, Puzzles and Cyberspace, where, as stated in that link:

System Shock can go from almost pure 3D shooter with bad monsters and linear progress to near adventure game with feeble opponents that are there just for show and many quests requiring lots of running around the space station. I think this variability ensured that System Shock was popular with many kinds of players. I naturally played the version with not too dangerous monsters and most complex quests and toughest puzzles.

Well whatever, I know what your vote will be. :D

 

[galsiah]

...I'd say offer up some suggestions as to what you would see working.

What I'd see working is a system as an integral part of the game - not as an optional extra. This automatically implies that I can't give you a good eating system on its own - it must tie in with all the survival-related elements in the game. If it is merely an optional extra, I'd be against including it at all.

I'm also saying that a good system would be more than I can come up with in five minutes. (I'm tired - perhaps I'll think about it tomorrow ). Most people's suggestions for combat systems are ill-thought-out - and that's for a much more well understood, tried and tested game system. [usually I stick to pointing out flaws, rather than coming up with entire systems - since again, the best combat system depends on a holistic view of the game]

With regards to 'options', I have to disagree, as not everyone has the same tastes.

And they don't have to buy the same games. Providing variety should be the focus - things that every player will appreciate, but some more than others. Adding in entire systems that some players will never use is just a waste.

No different than difficulty settings that most games have, having levels of survival is a perfectly reasonable thing for people that may want to give it a try, but are more interested in the world and the story.

If you are also advocating togglable combat, then I agree with you. I think a toggle on survival is as reasonable as a toggle on combat - no more and no less. If you aren't advocating toggleable combat, why aren't you? Neither is realistic, both provide legitimate gameplay options.
[Having different difficulty levels in combat/survival is of course fine.]

Generally, I think that with a given amount of time/effort/money to spend on a project, it makes more sense to focus on getting systems right for those who want them, rather than opting for breadth and providing selectable options. I'd always prefer in-game variety to menu options where possible - if catering to different players is the goal. [I'm not saying that options can never work, but there needs to be a very large common core of the game that works really well with any option. If you need to make a load of concessions to optional aspects to get them to fit, it's not worth it.]

 

[Reklar]

Hmm, a very interesting topic to be posed, one rife with possiblities and very time consuming thought.

In general I agree with several posts already made (Vault Dweller, HardCode, etc.), but the one thing I don't recall be mentioned is plausibility of exploration in relation to the sense of urgency of the quests you have on your task list. One of the things that rather bothers me about most cRPGs, even the good ones, is that you can go off exploring without any care to that urgent quest you just accepted, such as rescuing the farmer's son from giant bugs, simply because the designer doesn't want to punish the player for being curious. Now I said it "rather bothers" me, not that I detest it, because I understand from a design and development standpoint timed quests can be a real pain to implement when the game world is supposed to be so vaired and reactive as to allow the player a more immersive experience. However, even keeping that in mind, I do think it is unreasonable to preface a task accepted by the player as urgent and then let them set it aside until later, for whatever reason, because it jars one from the reality the game is trying to create. For the basic fetch and carry quest I can understand it being okay to do it when convenient, but when you have a situation, such as the ending of Knights of the Old Republic, it seems more sensible to somehow reward them for quickly moving to the final confrontation instead of running all about looking for unique items or side encounters.

Hmm, I really should have distilled that response, but I'm tired so I will simply apologize for wasting words. If I think of anything further I'll try to post it before the discussion dies off.

-Reklar

(Edit: I really wish I had more time to think about this topic right now. Darn work and school. )

 

[fizzelopeguss]

I find exploring and reading the background of unique areas far more interesting than some dungeon crawl that rewards a super weapon at the end.

I'm like that in all my games, in RTS titles i usually turtle my way through and scour every inch of the map for something of interest, complete all the side objectives etc. Same for FPS's, in half life 2's driving sequences i stopped at each house along the road and rummaged about for unique encounters. The antlion sequences when you're jumping about on bits of wood, i built ramps up to the higher ground wondering what was up there. Love that shit.

If you've got decent level designers and artists then i WILL seek out all the extra side fluff that you put into your games, i can't help myself.