Witcher 3 - 11 things CD Project Needs to do - editorital @ Strategy Informer

Originally Posted by JDR13
How many open-world games did Bethesda make prior to Arena?

Yes, because arena and skyrim are at the same level.

Arena was pretty crappy, as I recall.

I dont want another open-world game.

Give me story and characters instead.

Since Skyrim made such publicity every publisher and game developer seems to feel the need to follow int that direction ( or say they will). I Hope its just a pr stunt.

C

Originally Posted by rune_74
Yes, because arena and skyrim are at the same level.

By 1994 standards, yeah, I'd say they're probably pretty close in terms of scope and ambition. In fact, a lot of fans would say Skyrim is dumbed down compared to Arena.

Not sure what any of this has to do with Skyrim though.

I don't think game will be anything like skyrim I don't think it fits CDPR and Witcher series.I am pretty certain game will be far smaller in scale and more dense with content.

Also all things on list in article seem pretty reasonable.

Originally Posted by Nameless one
I don't think game will be anything like skyrim I don't think it fits CDPR and Witcher series.I am pretty certain game will be far smaller in scale and more dense with content.

Another possibility could be same scale, but with different distribution of content - few content-dense centres along with content-light landscapes meant to be traversed/explored quickly on a horse.

Making a non-linear open world game with "dense content" on the level of Witcher is all but impossible with this kind of timeframe. Unless your world is REALLY small.

It would be senseless to have wide open landscapes with light content - because then the biggest aspect of open world games would be lost = worthwhile exploration.

There's little doubt these guys have talent - but in this case, I'm worried they might have bitten over more than they can chew.

Skyrim was exceptional at what it did - but it's also the result of a VERY large and VERY experienced team having done iterations of similar designs for two decades.

Everything about Witcher 3 SOUNDS great - but I'm certainly getting sceptical they can really pull this off.

"there’s the fact that while there’s only really been one series that has truly made open-world RPGs work – the Elder Scrolls games"

This is where they lost me. That's a huge overstatement, if I ever saw one. They may have made open world RPGs sell due to moving the genre to mass market via consoles, but they sure as hell haven't made it "work" as it is, at least not exclusively. Several degrees of open world have been achieved with - in my opinion - far greater success in cohesion and overall quality than in TES games.

Originally Posted by Soulbane
"there’s the fact that while there’s only really been one series that has truly made open-world RPGs work – the Elder Scrolls games"

This is where they lost me. That's a huge overstatement, if I ever saw one. They may have made open world RPGs sell due to moving the genre to mass market via consoles, but they sure as hell haven't made it "work" as it is, at least not exclusively. Several degrees of open world have been achieved with - in my opinion - far greater success in cohesion and overall quality than in TES games.

name one? Be honest here and not with the weird hate generated here.

Originally Posted by rune_74
name one? Be honest here and not with the weird hate generated here.

I'm curious also. There are plenty of games that tried and failed but your right. I can't think of any as successful as Bethesda either. Some might say the Gothic series but there wrong.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
I'm curious also. There are plenty of games that tried and failed but your right. I can't think of any as successful as Bethesda either. Some might say the Gothic series but there wrong.

I don't think Soulbane was talking about sales numbers. Maybe you should try reading his post again.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I don't think Soulbane was talking about sales numbers. Maybe you should try reading his post again.

I wasn't talking just about sales number. Quality,skill, and sales none have ever beat Bethesda. But thank you for your response. As usual.

Originally Posted by DeepO
Another possibility could be same scale, but with different distribution of content - few content-dense centres along with content-light landscapes meant to be traversed/explored quickly on a horse.

I'm with DArt on this. If the whole game world isn't equaly explorable than "content-light landscapes" become useless, time wasting artificial padding.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
I wasn't talking just about sales number. Quality,skill, and sales none have ever beat Bethesda. But thank you for your response. As usual.

Well then maybe that's what you should have actually said. I know.. tough concept for you to grasp, right?

Anyways, quality is completely subjective, and to claim that Bethesda is tops in that category is nothing more than an opinion. Personally, I've enjoyed their games a lot, but quantity doesn't equal quality. They can definitely lay claim to having the largest open-world games, but I don't think they're the most compelling.

A more semi-open world like Gothic 2 would be a very good thing in my opinion. There should be a genuine good reason why you can't move to the next area or go back to the original areas. If you struggle with certain optional mobs, nothing should prevent you going back later and cleaning them up - unless someone else gets there before you.

Originally Posted by zahratustra
If the whole game world isn't equaly explorable than "content-light landscapes" become useless, time wasting artificial padding.

You could also call this "padding" realism. In most games, including previous Witcher games, if you are travelling on a path through the woods, you can't stray from the path. Would it not be nice if you could, even if the woods contained little else but trees? In reality, you seldom leave the path unless you are hunting for berries, mushrooms or prey. Which could be useful when gathering ingredients for alchemy in a fantasy game. "Padding" is not time wasting, unless exploring it is mandatory. Neither is there anything particularly "artificial" about such padding, whereas small, insurmountable fences and invisible walls come across as artificial.

Originally Posted by Mr Smiley
In most games, including previous Witcher games, if you are travelling on a path through the woods, you can't stray from the path.

Eh? That's certainly not how I remember the Witcher games. There were some forced paths in TW1, but I recall TW2 being completely open within the boundaries of its levels.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Eh? That's certainly not how I remember the Witcher games. There were some forced paths in TW1, but I recall TW2 being completely open within the boundaries of its levels.

I'm old and my memory is not what it used to be. Nevertheless, I seem to recall at least some particularly silly insurmountable fences in the first Withcer game. But the way my mind works these days, it might have been a Fable game. Anyway, I'm talking about genral game design here, which tend to be of the canyon variety.

As contrast, I loved the way you could wander off into randomly generated wilderness in Daggerfall, to mention a game with a truly open world. My point being that "padding" can add tremendously to the immersion factor. Like the mostly empty city of Los Angelse in L.A. Noir, for instance.

Nice as it is with content heavy game worlds like Skyrim, there is something wrong with "forgotten" ruins and "secret" hideouts in plain sight just outside of town.

Originally Posted by zahratustra
I'm with DArt on this. If the whole game world isn't equaly explorable than "content-light landscapes" become useless, time wasting artificial padding.

The outrage!

"Equally explorable" tends to lead to the theme park syndrome and diminishing of verisimilitude factor.
I don´t think that one or more points of interests being within a stone´s throw of pretty much wherever you are is a prerequisite for worthwhile exploration.

That aside, I´m "proposing" content-light landscapes as a possible "means" to retain quality-heaviness.
Imagine world roughly of same size as Skyrim´s, but with, say, 3x less of wilderness locations/points of interests. Then imagine that these points of interests are, say, on average, of 2x higher quality (design, uniqueness, quest content, etc.) than Skyrim´s.
Assuming the same running speed, what would you choose?

Also note that the horse could potentially diminish some of what you call "time wasting artificial padding" if it´s faster than the Skyrim iterations.

As a side note, Skyrim may be light on padding when it comes to finding new locations, but is in my opinion heavy on padding when it comes to the locations themselves, especially when it comes to dungeons which tend to be longer/bigger than their uniqueness justifies.

At any rate, if the landmass is really 20% bigger than Skyrim´s and there´s no half-truth hidden in there (like, 70% of it actually not being traversable), there´s gotta be a catch somewhere . Personally I hope the catch isn´t in a lot of content being generic and half-assed.

Well, DeepO your arguments convinced me All things considered (and remembering Skyrim), I'd rather have a number of areas with high levels on content surrounded by content light ones than having content spread equaly (and more thinly) over the whole map.