Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Proper map design in open world cRPGs

Zanzoken

Arcane
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
3,558
What is proper map design for an open world cRPG? It's something not a lot of games get right, due to poor content design.

For example, here is a map from World of Warcraft, marked up to show the level of the content (i.e. enemies) in each zone.

693158.jpg
The problem with this is it's not going to actually feel like an open world to the player.

If a player tries to explore this world freely, they're going to run into big problems. Imagine being a new character in that central 1-20 zone. Even if you grind your way up to level 20 before venturing out, the only directions you can actually go are north and possibly east. Venture south or west and you'll immediately run into enemies that will effortlessly kill you. So the design is forcing you to move through the zones in a predefined, linear fashion.

Now you might be thinking, okay but that's WoW and we all know WoW is shit. However we can see a similar pattern in Divinity Original Sin, a highly praised cRPG even on the Codex.

96DD195AD430C7FE5EC87F8AE67A996550F93337
Once you get through the starter area and make it the town of Cyseal, you technically have access to the entire area. But because of the way the content is designed, you only have one way that you can actually go, which is northwest toward the lighthouse. All other paths lead to death (for those who don't know, in D:OS enemies that are a level higher than your characters are quite difficult, and a 2+ level gap is virtually insurmountable).

So is this bad? I think it is, because the player is essentially being presented with a false choice. What appears on the surface to be an open world game ends up being effectively on-rails. It's jarring and undercuts the key promise inherent to open world design, which is that you can move freely throughout the world.

What's the answer? Well obviously it's not level scaling, made (in)famous by Oblivion. While that does ostensibly solve the problem of allowing the player to explore, it also completely neuters several key aspects of the cRPG experience -- challenge, character progression, worldbuilding, etc. A case of the cure being worse than the illness.

The real solution lies in smarter map and content design. Instead of a series of zones that flow in a linear fashion from one to the next, designers should go for a broader "hub and spoke" type design that gives the player a lot of initial freedom, but also makes some areas prohibitively dangerous.

Here's a quick (i.e. shitty) mockup I did in Paint to help demonstrate.

2slvRem.png
See the difference? You can explore a lot of the world from the outset, but there is also a lot of territory that is too challenging for a new character and must be tackled later on.

This is where you use worldbuilding to inform the player's actions and reinforce the content design. For example, why is there a city (Scarytown) out in such a dangerous part of the world? Because that's where all the <insert precious resource here> is and we need it in order to <insert reason here>. People braved the danger and built a fortified town, along with Fort Safepassage at the start of the trail to help guide and protect travelers to and from. This makes the world feel believable and real, because it's in line with how people actually behave.

Even in the safer parts of the world, you can place "pockets of resistance" that only high level characters can withstand. No handholding, just give the player a heads up. NPCs might say "stay away from Fort Dragonslair because the dragons attack all the time and people are killed" and guess what? If you go there as a level 3 character, that's exactly what should happen. If the player doesn't heed the warnings then that's on them. Then later they will go back as a level 20, and actually be able to fight a dragon and win, which feels good. That's the essence of character progression... being able to do shit that you couldn't do before.

Anyway, this post is long enough but I hope that it generates some interesting discussion. The point is, avoid strict zoning and level scaling in open world games, and just design the content in a way that gives the player an appropriate amount of freedom to explore but also presents mid- and late-game challenges. It's difficult but if you have the right design goals in mind it can be done.
 

0sacred

poop retainer
Patron
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
1,411
Location
MFGA (Make Fantasy Great Again)
Codex Year of the Donut
This is why open world never meant much to me. Most of the time it's a clearly marked transition from A to B unless you want to get your butt kicked.

My preferred way of solving this is cutting down the times the player gets "sprung". Monsters just standing around closing off their zone waiting for players to venture near are outdated. Instead, most fights should be "picked". By the player when actively committing to clear a location, by enemies for storytelling reasons (and these can come at the appropriate level). The rest of the time you should have a lot of leeway travelling, exploring, solving puzzles and interacting with NPC's. Monsters should be hanging around their lairs/ nests/ forts more often than not.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
4,189
RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In
Don't ward the world into zones. Make it so that player may encounter high-level mobs even in starting areas. Just give him tools to avoid them if needed. That makes the world feel more realistic.
 
Joined
May 31, 2018
Messages
2,509
Location
The Present
The WoW map is more or less what you've described, it just corresponds to the very different geography from what you have in your own idealized example. The problem with designing a map like yours, is that it is a disproportionate amount of area committed to a character level that will be exceeded quickly. In most RPG systems, experience levels are progressive, so more time is spent the higher one advances. Dedicating 50% of your map to challenges the player will soon outmatch is unwise--particularly if you're guaranteeing players will have to repeatedly travel through it.

In D:OS, I left Cyseal at Level 3 with no NPCs and went to the Level 6 (beach) area. I realized I was probably "in the wrong neighborhood", but the difficulty was fun. Gangrelrumbler is correct, in that maps should be a logical mixture of threats--but allow the player means to evade or withdraw from finding themselves out of their depth.
 

Dorateen

Arcane
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
4,332
Location
The Crystal Mist Mountains
I would love to see an analysis graph like that for Might & Magic I or II.

Portals, or other means of far reaching transportation, are also a way to allow characters to access areas that maybe they shouldn't quite be there yet. But then again, there is lots enjoyment from trying to survive higher level content.

As always, freedom of exploration and player agency are the highest forms of design principle in a role-playing game.
 

Tigranes

Arcane
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
10,350
Zanzoken I like the spirit of the argument, but your mockup doesn't address the actual challenge of designing these maps.

If we look at DOS1, we have a level variance of 1-9, in a game where one or two level difference is major. So to simplify we're trying to fit in 9 'steps' of diffficulty into this area.
Whereas in your mockup, we're only dealing with three 'steps'.

So what would the Cyseal zone look like with your philosophy?
  • We could end up with 9 concentric rings, which is interesting, but possibly quite impractical, as you're constantly having to turn back home or explore the map in a circle.
  • We could designate, say, enemy levels 4-7 to all inhabit the yellow area in your mockup, but in practice this might mean that the player is constantly running into enemies too powerful for them and having to do a lot of running around to find enemies they can reasonably defeat.
The real issue arguably isn't how the zones are cut up - the real issue is whether there should be a flatter level curve, so that it is more feasible to take on enemies beyond your level (more Gothic, less Witcher 3). If you have a system where you gotta be level 5 to fight level 5s, then no matter how you divide the map, you're always essentially playing a linear game, just with less or more camouflage.
 

lukaszek

the determinator
Patron
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
12,618
tibia was a perfection. Even newbies should know where giant spider is lurking among lowly trolls.
Or that perfect amazon hunting grounds with occasional valkyries to spice things up and if you really want to explore a bit - witch to burn you alive.

Also it builds community nicely when you get newbies asking higher lvled players to help them out
 

Sjukob

Arcane
Joined
Jul 3, 2015
Messages
2,052
Anyway, this post is long enough but I hope that it generates some interesting discussion. The point is, avoid strict zoning and level scaling in open world games, and just design the content in a way that gives the player an appropriate amount of freedom to explore but also presents mid- and late-game challenges. It's difficult but if you have the right design goals in mind it can be done.
You've played Gothic not that long ago, so you already know how it should be done.
 

Xi

Arcane
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
6,101
Location
Twilight Zone
The best way to do this is to scale zones based on when you think a player should attempt them. Then, let the player decide when they want to take on a challenge. This, with some static placements for special encounters is the best way to go.

It's impossible to balance out every class, combo, etc to a static world. It's also boring (uninspiring? immersion breaking?) to have the world scaled too directly to your character. For instance, if your character enters a zone at say level 8, and the zone scales from 10-15, then your character ius facing slightly more powerful monsters. Still, you could go there at level one, and with the right meta gaming make some serious progress or acquire some serious, game changing loot.

Best of both worlds.

In an elder scrolls type game, I think you do this with dungeons, and then populate the world map statically.

Then tie a stat to some type of warning system that lets the player know that "This area seems formidable." Some type of system to let the player know what they are getting themselves into.
 

kangaxx

Arbiter
Joined
Jan 26, 2020
Messages
1,385
Location
Atop a flaming horse
Agree on the DOS front, although I played the second one much more recently so that one has stuck out in my head. Among all of it's faults, one of the most annoying things is being one shot by a group of hidden scarecrows or that fucking witch on a cross. Essentially punished for exploring the map early on.

Unless I missed obvious warnings (maybe I didn't speak to enough NPCs or whatever) it's bad design.
 

thesecret1

Arcane
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
5,675
I think Gothic had the answer – no zoning, just populate the world logically (in line with worldbuilding), with powerful foes being frequently sprinkled about in areas otherwise filled with low tier enemies, so the player needs to stay on his toes and give them a wide berth. Should the story demand it, feel free to spawn more high level enemies on the map after important events.

Really, open world was Gothic's strongest suit, and an example of how it should be done. No need to reinvent the wheel.
 

welly321

Scholar
Joined
Feb 14, 2019
Messages
115
Location
Massachusetts
The absolute best open world in an RPG was everquest. They sprinkled high level mobs in newbie zones which made it very memorable. Who hasn't been killed by the Griffon in East Commonlands? Or shit their pants at the Sand Giants in Oasis?
 

Zanzoken

Arcane
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
3,558
The WoW map is more or less what you've described, it just corresponds to the very different geography from what you have in your own idealized example. The problem with designing a map like yours, is that it is a disproportionate amount of area committed to a character level that will be exceeded quickly. In most RPG systems, experience levels are progressive, so more time is spent the higher one advances. Dedicating 50% of your map to challenges the player will soon outmatch is unwise--particularly if you're guaranteeing players will have to repeatedly travel through it.

In D:OS, I left Cyseal at Level 3 with no NPCs and went to the Level 6 (beach) area. I realized I was probably "in the wrong neighborhood", but the difficulty was fun. Gangrelrumbler is correct, in that maps should be a logical mixture of threats--but allow the player means to evade or withdraw from finding themselves out of their depth.

I should clarify in my shitty prototype map I didn't really intend for the green zone to mean "low level mobs only" or "nothing bad can happen to you here". If I was writing the zones out in long-form I would say...

Green: This area should be relatively safe for all characters.
Yellow: This area is dangerous and you should be prepared to fight difficult monsters and/or run away if necessary.
Red: If you're not a high level character, you're going to die.

But really if I was making an open world game there would be a presumption that you always have a small chance of running into an asskicking monster, regardless of where you are. Which is I believe what Gangrelrumbler was correctly pointing out.

The real issue arguably isn't how the zones are cut up - the real issue is whether there should be a flatter level curve, so that it is more feasible to take on enemies beyond your level (more Gothic, less Witcher 3). If you have a system where you gotta be level 5 to fight level 5s, then no matter how you divide the map, you're always essentially playing a linear game, just with less or more camouflage.

Point well taken. I should probably admit that I'm a big fan of shallower power curves in general. In my mind, if a low level character has 40 HP then a high level character should have like 100 HP. The growth in leveling up should come more from gaining new skills and abilities, not just raw overwhelming number increases.

You've played Gothic not that long ago, so you already know how it should be done.

I think Gothic had the answer – no zoning, just populate the world logically (in line with worldbuilding), with powerful foes being frequently sprinkled about in areas otherwise filled with low tier enemies, so the player needs to stay on his toes and give them a wide berth. Should the story demand it, feel free to spawn more high level enemies on the map after important events.

Really, open world was Gothic's strongest suit, and an example of how it should be done. No need to reinvent the wheel.

Good points, I like Gothic a lot. Now that I think about it I am a huge fan of the "chapters" approach that the Gothics use. It allows a designer to adjust content manually, which avoids all the issues that are inherent to the Oblivion approach. Then there are the additional benefits... it makes the world feel more alive, communicates an appropriate passage of time in tune with the story, and even creates opportunities for C&C.

When you think about it, it's a highly underutilized mechanic.
 

Zed Duke of Banville

Dungeon Master
Patron
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
11,756
Faery Tale Adventure (1986) was the first open world RPG and allowed the player to roam freely across a vast area in search of clues and items, with seven areas being distinct biomes from the norm for Holm. Morrowind (2002) adopted a similar approach in dividing Vvardenfell into nine distinct biomes, although some (e.g. Red Mountain) had stronger random encounters the extent was limited so that even a low-level character could explore most overland areas.

06gfro.jpg

xq4s71.png


MW-map-Vvardenfell.jpg

611px-MW-map-Regions.jpg
 

Xi

Arcane
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
6,101
Location
Twilight Zone
Faery Tale Adventure (1986) was the first open world RPG and allowed the player to roam freely across a vast area in search of clues and items, with seven areas being distinct biomes from the norm for Holm. Morrowind (2002) adopted a similar approach in dividing Vvardenfell into nine distinct biomes, although some (e.g. Red Mountain) had stronger random encounters the extent was limited so that
even a low-level character could explore most overland areas.

.......

I vaguely remember playing Fairytale adventure on a Sega Master System back in the day.



I remember it being unforgivably hard. Like the Dark Soul of it's day.
 

Xi

Arcane
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
6,101
Location
Twilight Zone
Wanted to add, I think M&M 1 was the first open world game. However, these both released the same year I think.
 

Pocgels

Scholar
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
166
Morrowind was really good about this. Things got tougher the further you got from Seyda Neen, and if there was something really scary, it was pretty much always clear to you probably before you even saw it. You couldn't fast-travel very close to the toughest stuff, and it was usually away from the road. The pilgrim's path talks about which trials are the hardest, random people warn you not to go into daedric ruins but don't say much about the much easier burial mounds, and the there is no way any sapient creature could enter ghostgate without knowing what was in store. Even the harder quests in Vivec were explained to be more dangerous. But the game needs a lot of exposition and lore-dumps to make this feel authentic.
 

luj1

You're all shills
Vatnik
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Messages
12,869
Location
Eastern block
Morrowind was really good about this. Things got tougher the further you got from Seyda Neen, and if there was something really scary, it was pretty much always clear to you probably before you even saw it. You couldn't fast-travel very close to the toughest stuff, and it was usually away from the road. The pilgrim's path talks about which trials are the hardest, random people warn you not to go into daedric ruins but don't say much about the much easier burial mounds, and the there is no way any sapient creature could enter ghostgate without knowing what was in store. Even the harder quests in Vivec were explained to be more dangerous. But the game needs a lot of exposition and lore-dumps to make this feel authentic.

I was really low level when I went beyond the Ghostgate for the first time... I bought a levitation potion and flew over. It was like having a fever.
 

luj1

You're all shills
Vatnik
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Messages
12,869
Location
Eastern block
When I played Morrowind as a kid I didn't know where the settlements were, so it took me days to get to Balmora. It felt like traveling from planet to planet.
 

whydoibother

Arcane
Patron
Joined
May 2, 2018
Messages
15,477
Location
bulgaristan
Codex Year of the Donut
Open Google maps, hit the topographical map, and zoom around Europe. Find geographically defined areas, where the natural borders will be tall mountain chains, or wide rivers, or sea coasts. Not too big, nothing like a "France", more like the Po Valley at the most, and preferably smaller. Look at neighboring geographically defined areas. Think about how cultures (in the exaggerated fictional way, not real life historical cultures who were pretty similar for the most part) would evolve and interact. The Balkans are particularly good for this.
That's basically how I like open worlds, and its why I think World of Warcraft isn't too bad. All of its areas are VERY exaggerated in their difference, with snow world next to desert world or whatever, but they are somewhat geographically defined, you can see why the people of the snow world are as they are, why the people of the desert world are as they are, and where the desert world ends and the snow world begins. One worlds should feel like a seamless level selector screen.
 

Kliwer

Savant
Joined
Oct 19, 2018
Messages
215
As I have already indicated in several threads: an open world game must have relatively "flat" character development to work well. A good example is Baldur's Gate 1, where throughout the game you advance in 1-9 ranges (and not 1-50, for example). Such a game cannot be characterized by too much inflation of numbers. If our lhealth points double over the course of the game - that's good. But if they increase from 5 to 1000 - it's hard to talk about free exploration. In games with relatively "flat" character development, we can try to defeat enemies stronger than us by several levels. Weaker enemies also do not cease to be dangerous, especially in large groups (and let's add some mechanics that make fighting multiple enemies much more difficult). Ideally - character development gives us new tactical possibilities (spells, special attacks), and not a simple increase in numerical values. For these reasons, for example, I have always liked the system in Drakensang. Throughout the game, our main attribute increases there from 16 to 21. And not from 20 to 500.

Recently, I was playing Lords of Xulima. This game would be really good if it had more subdued character development. In its present state, unfortunately, the open nature of the world is only theoretical. In fact, we always have 1-2 routes to choose from. A monster stronger than us by several levels is unbeatable, regardless of the tactic.

Personally, I would also not make the world completely "open". The structure broken down into chapters allows you to better control the degree of difficulty - while maintaining the player's freedom within the chapter.
 

markec

Twitterbot
Patron
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
45,664
Location
Croatia
Codex 2012 Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Dead State Project: Eternity Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath
First you need to build a logical world, with farms, settlements and roads, because atleast to me a believable world adds much to immersion and atmosphere. The further you go from civilization the more consistently dangerous enemies should be, but always keeping some difficulty varied across the zones. Areas near settlements should be light on monsters and their difficulty (justified by military/adventurer patrols that get paid to keep that areas safe as possible) although you should place some high level monsters hidden here and there in order to keep player on his toes. I find it silly when there is a tomb of undead or a bandit lair sitting just by the busy road few hundred meters away from a major settlement. But you can always have some vampire hiding in a crypt, demon worshippers in a sewers or a minotaur wondering near a village etc.

To make it easier for a new players you should have visual warnings of a threat, if you see a cave entrance with bunch of human bones around it should be obvious you should not go in there as lvl 1.

New Vegas does have similar start as you have weakest enemies around Goodspring but if you go in a certain directions you can encounter some of the most dangerous enemies in the game that you cant beat. Problem was that to many this felt as the game was railroaded and forcing the player down a certain linear path. To me New Vegas shows both worst and best of open world design.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom