Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
WHOLE WORLD OR NOT
Posts
Pages:
1
Firehawk11
View playlists
CloseWhat is the impacted of the map or world that your game is put in? Let's look at FF12 and FF13.
FF12 was a great game because you had free choice of where you went and why. you never got forced to go a single path.
FF13 was not so great in this section because you were forced to go along a single path with no time or gameplay to allow the player to freely explore the world of Cocoon. (I thought it was a good game though)
So i'm asking would it be better to have a free,open world. A set world or just a single city where everything happens? A great rpg doesn't have to be set in the entire would to be awesome, it just needs a good story and gameplay.
FF12 was a great game because you had free choice of where you went and why. you never got forced to go a single path.
FF13 was not so great in this section because you were forced to go along a single path with no time or gameplay to allow the player to freely explore the world of Cocoon. (I thought it was a good game though)
So i'm asking would it be better to have a free,open world. A set world or just a single city where everything happens? A great rpg doesn't have to be set in the entire would to be awesome, it just needs a good story and gameplay.
the correct answer is: it depends. It depends on the plot you have laid out and whether this suits a high degree of freedom and interactivity with the world at large, or whether it suits a closed setting (if it is very linear, it could suit a closed setting). It also depends on how you implemented your systemz - a game with a high degree of progression and customizability might benefit from an open explorable world, but in a game with linear or limited scope progression an open world could come across as tedious. It depends on your intended audience as well.
Cozzer
0
RPGs cities are abstractions of actual cities; how much you abstract them depends on the scope of your story.
If your story spans the whole world, you'll probably include just the 10 or so cities where important events will occur, and for each of them include just the 10 or so important buildings.
If your story is set in a city, you can expand it much more, making it as "big" and interesting as the whole world of my first example.
(I mean, I've lived in my city for years, and I don't think I've seen even 5% of it)
If your story spans the whole world, you'll probably include just the 10 or so cities where important events will occur, and for each of them include just the 10 or so important buildings.
If your story is set in a city, you can expand it much more, making it as "big" and interesting as the whole world of my first example.
(I mean, I've lived in my city for years, and I don't think I've seen even 5% of it)
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I loved the linearity of FF13 because I was automatically directed to the next part of the gameplay, I didn't have to search and hunt just to find the gameplay. Also for grinding-based reasons that Craze is sick of me talking about.
I realize I am apparently the only one in the world who feels this way and everyone else despises FF13's linearity. RPGs without exploration come off as lacking to most people. (I would describe them as focused.)
I realize I am apparently the only one in the world who feels this way and everyone else despises FF13's linearity. RPGs without exploration come off as lacking to most people. (I would describe them as focused.)
I agree with kentona that it depends on the game. An open-world game with a basic story but a lot of quests will appeal to some, whereas I tightly linear story-driven game will appeal to others. Personally, I like a bit of a balance; I think that even in a linear game the player should have some choice in what they do, and be able to see where their characters are in relation to the rest of the game world.
My current RPG is world-spanning, but I had to cut down the freedom of travel somewhat from my original draft. I realized that the gameplay demanded larger areas, which meant that there would ultimately need to be fewer areas. This meant that I couldn't fill out a full overworld map with areas, so I decided to implement a map screen with selectable regions for each of the 10 or so major areas in the game. Once a region is selected, the player is taken to a 'Super Mario World' style map screen where they walk along a path to select one of 5-10 locations (towns, dungeons, etc.). This system avoids the problem of having to geographically connect areas, as well as the problem of having large areas of nothing except random encounters.
My current RPG is world-spanning, but I had to cut down the freedom of travel somewhat from my original draft. I realized that the gameplay demanded larger areas, which meant that there would ultimately need to be fewer areas. This meant that I couldn't fill out a full overworld map with areas, so I decided to implement a map screen with selectable regions for each of the 10 or so major areas in the game. Once a region is selected, the player is taken to a 'Super Mario World' style map screen where they walk along a path to select one of 5-10 locations (towns, dungeons, etc.). This system avoids the problem of having to geographically connect areas, as well as the problem of having large areas of nothing except random encounters.
Pokemaniac
3559
author=LockeZThis is me so much.
I loved the linearity of FF13 because I was automatically directed to the next part of the gameplay, I didn't have to search and hunt just to find the gameplay.
Non-linear games, 99% of the time, just feel... aimless. It always feels as if everything is either a long-term goal(the main story), or unrelated to the main game(side-quests). A notable exception for me was FF-AT2(which I assume is like the other games in the series), because everything was broken up very nicely and neatly and you always knew what you'd get if you did each quest, and more importantly, which quests would advance the game. That game was a rare case where I did all the optional content.
I honestly don't understand the appeal of non-linear games. They're meant to make the world feel alive or something, but to me they've always felt really empty. I love options, but I think you should know your choices and be able to actually make them without stumbling around for a few hours.
Crystalgate
694
I also think that the answer is "it depends". However, I can also add that I prefer variety here. Some RPGs can have an open world, some a single city. The same goes for linear vs non linear.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
As usual, I'd like to point out that answering "it depends" is worthless unless you then go on to explain what exactly you think it depends on.
Crystalgate
694
Mostly, it depends on the concept of the game.
I've found that whether the game takes place in one town, or multiple towns, or even no towns at all, is usually already decided by the concept of the game. I had one idea where the hero was searching for someone. He knew which city that person was taken to, so there was little to no reason for him to go to any other cities. Another idea of mine had the party chasing a dangerous person. The whole chasing thing made them go trough multiple towns.
You can do the opposite, start with deciding how many towns you want your game to have and then craft a story according that decision. In that case the answer depends on the maker's preferences. If you really want to make a game with only one town, then you shouldn't fell forced to make a game that spans over a dozen different towns. I think that usually though, people start with an idea and the number of towns need to fit with that idea.
I've found that whether the game takes place in one town, or multiple towns, or even no towns at all, is usually already decided by the concept of the game. I had one idea where the hero was searching for someone. He knew which city that person was taken to, so there was little to no reason for him to go to any other cities. Another idea of mine had the party chasing a dangerous person. The whole chasing thing made them go trough multiple towns.
You can do the opposite, start with deciding how many towns you want your game to have and then craft a story according that decision. In that case the answer depends on the maker's preferences. If you really want to make a game with only one town, then you shouldn't fell forced to make a game that spans over a dozen different towns. I think that usually though, people start with an idea and the number of towns need to fit with that idea.
Well, what about situations where there are 2 world maps, say, there is a map in a already huge area, then you make a world map holding more world maps, if they all are as big as the first(say 150x150), and the new world map is bigger(300x300), and the cities are spaced out, and all the other "countries",we'll call them, have nothing really to do with the storyline than sub-storylines, extra items, and stuff to help you beat the final boss, would you rather have a world map where your character is walking around the map, free as can be but it would look boring, and for what? Or would you rather have a world map where you are stuck on a linear path, and be stuck going to the countries if you want, for no reason.
I'm pretty much saying that it's not always the storyline, but the size of your world that effects it, say, bigger than Jupiter(500x500 map), which would you rather have, freedom to roam the world the way you want, and get bored from walking and killing, or a linear map, where you have no way to explore, and just go from point a to point b.
I'm pretty much saying that it's not always the storyline, but the size of your world that effects it, say, bigger than Jupiter(500x500 map), which would you rather have, freedom to roam the world the way you want, and get bored from walking and killing, or a linear map, where you have no way to explore, and just go from point a to point b.
Crystalgate
694
My explanation included the words "mostly" and "usually" and Cozzer said "probably". A "not always" is already implied.
As for your example though, why would you begin with the world map size? It looks like the backwards direction to take. It would be easier to fit the size of the world map to the contents you intend to put on it rather than the opposite.
As for your example though, why would you begin with the world map size? It looks like the backwards direction to take. It would be easier to fit the size of the world map to the contents you intend to put on it rather than the opposite.
Cozzer
0
I don't really understand what Pyro meant, but if all main content of your game is in one city and other ones just have sidequest, why not ditching the world map entirely and creating some sort of "train station" or something that brings you where you want?
Pokemaniac
3559
author=Feldschlacht IVAffirmative.author=Pokemaniac
I'm a robot.
It's not that I can't enjoy a certain amount of that type of gaming. It just can't hold my attention.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/features/9215-The-Perils-of-Too-Much-Choice
read this and report back
read this and report back
Interesting read. I personally think audience participation would have made that experience much more interesting than just observing an 'open-world' story, especially since it requires the same amount of effort from the audience. When you read a novel, the author has selected what is important to the story beforehand. From what that article says of Sleep No More however, it seems as though the author has created a story and then challenged the audience to make sense out of it. Some people may enjoy such an exercise, but I prefer to sacrifice some detail in exchange for a coherent narrative. It's like you're asking the audience to play a game while not giving them the satisfaction of interaction.
In that respect, it seems similar in some ways to the old TurboGrafx16 game Basted, which is an RPG that takes place entirely in one town. While the town is very detailed, there is virtually no freedom of choice or chance to interact meaningfully with it, as the bulk of the game is comprised of non-interactive cinema sequences. The game is basically a visual novel disguised as an RPG, which begs the question of why the creators bothered with gameplay at all, as it just makes the player/audience have to do extra work to get the story.
To quote The Brothers Duomazov:
"Basted is a very short and mostly dopey one-town nightmare that rarely lets you make use of its interesting battle system, as those kobolds at the beginning, some knights at the end, and sporadic "bosses" comprise the entire enemy "legion." Heck, you won't even be allowed to leave the town save for two brief excursions. One of these trips has you climb a mountain, dash through a cave, and rummage through an entire castle--and during all of this, you have to win only TWO fights. I never thought I'd be wishing for random battles, but man..."
I won't link to the review itself, since there are some risqué images, but you can find the review by searching the main site here:
http://www.thebrothersduomazov.com/
In that respect, it seems similar in some ways to the old TurboGrafx16 game Basted, which is an RPG that takes place entirely in one town. While the town is very detailed, there is virtually no freedom of choice or chance to interact meaningfully with it, as the bulk of the game is comprised of non-interactive cinema sequences. The game is basically a visual novel disguised as an RPG, which begs the question of why the creators bothered with gameplay at all, as it just makes the player/audience have to do extra work to get the story.
To quote The Brothers Duomazov:
"Basted is a very short and mostly dopey one-town nightmare that rarely lets you make use of its interesting battle system, as those kobolds at the beginning, some knights at the end, and sporadic "bosses" comprise the entire enemy "legion." Heck, you won't even be allowed to leave the town save for two brief excursions. One of these trips has you climb a mountain, dash through a cave, and rummage through an entire castle--and during all of this, you have to win only TWO fights. I never thought I'd be wishing for random battles, but man..."
I won't link to the review itself, since there are some risqué images, but you can find the review by searching the main site here:
http://www.thebrothersduomazov.com/
Well this has all been all very interesting and informative, and brings me to question some design elements of my project.
See the game is mostly linier, for the first few hours or so. But after a key sequence the world opens up a bit more. The way I was going to have it is the after that sequence you would unlock 3 or 4 minor missions. These would be missions that would have importance or impact to the overall plot, and they would give you rewards and Exp for competing them, but you would not be required to do all of them. And once half of the minor missions are done it would unlock the next plot heavy story mission, which you would have to do. And after the story mission is completed you would unlock another story mission or series if minor missions and that sequence would repeat itself a few times and that would be the game basically. I also want the game to have a mertodvania vibe, wherein you collect items and equipment that would allow you to explore past areas, as well as the stranded side quests and what-not.
But upon reflection I would like to ask, do you think this open endedness in necessary?
Now I think it’s a good idea mostly because it’s rare in these kinds of JRPS and I think I could pull it off, but it does give some food for thought doesn’t it?
See the game is mostly linier, for the first few hours or so. But after a key sequence the world opens up a bit more. The way I was going to have it is the after that sequence you would unlock 3 or 4 minor missions. These would be missions that would have importance or impact to the overall plot, and they would give you rewards and Exp for competing them, but you would not be required to do all of them. And once half of the minor missions are done it would unlock the next plot heavy story mission, which you would have to do. And after the story mission is completed you would unlock another story mission or series if minor missions and that sequence would repeat itself a few times and that would be the game basically. I also want the game to have a mertodvania vibe, wherein you collect items and equipment that would allow you to explore past areas, as well as the stranded side quests and what-not.
But upon reflection I would like to ask, do you think this open endedness in necessary?
Now I think it’s a good idea mostly because it’s rare in these kinds of JRPS and I think I could pull it off, but it does give some food for thought doesn’t it?
Cozzer
0
The idea in itself isn't bad, but it creates two problems:
- The plot: if the side missions are related to the plot, but the player is not required to complete all of them, you'll have to take this into account during the next "main storilyne" mission.
For example, the major mission could change depending on if the players discovered the secret passage for the villain's lair in a side mission or if they chose to do something else instead.
- The difficulty: if the side missions are to be done in any order, they have to be about the same difficulty. And if the player gains exp by doing them, this means they'll get easier as he goes along.
A suggestion: instead of giving exp/equipment as a reward, make the changes in the major mission be the reward.
For example, let's say the next major mission is infiltrating into the Villain's Palace: a side mission will give the player a key for a treasure room inside the palace, another one will allow him to kill the villain's henchman so he won't be botered during the main mission, another one will gain him the trust of the townfolk who will cover for him, another one will make the villain dispatch part of his mooks to somewhere else...
- The plot: if the side missions are related to the plot, but the player is not required to complete all of them, you'll have to take this into account during the next "main storilyne" mission.
For example, the major mission could change depending on if the players discovered the secret passage for the villain's lair in a side mission or if they chose to do something else instead.
- The difficulty: if the side missions are to be done in any order, they have to be about the same difficulty. And if the player gains exp by doing them, this means they'll get easier as he goes along.
A suggestion: instead of giving exp/equipment as a reward, make the changes in the major mission be the reward.
For example, let's say the next major mission is infiltrating into the Villain's Palace: a side mission will give the player a key for a treasure room inside the palace, another one will allow him to kill the villain's henchman so he won't be botered during the main mission, another one will gain him the trust of the townfolk who will cover for him, another one will make the villain dispatch part of his mooks to somewhere else...
There's also the best of both worlds. Open ended crossroads. Get a sidequest go one route. Main mission, opposite route.
The logic must be great though or else you just made players do a whole lot more backtracking. That's just me, I personally hate answers that say it depends. Sometimes it's necessary but I've seen enough rpg games where world map vs. no world map need not be a choice but a preference and often times they are preferences because it's so much more complex than just the existence of the map. It can fall completely towards Art rather than Game Design. Maps that are so uniquely placed and drawn that you feel excited just walking. Linear plots that have two branches one with a red town icon showing the main mission and other icons showing towns with sidequests. Elaborate neighboring towns and caverns where you walk past by a couple of towns on the map to create a illusion of a long journey.
The logic must be great though or else you just made players do a whole lot more backtracking. That's just me, I personally hate answers that say it depends. Sometimes it's necessary but I've seen enough rpg games where world map vs. no world map need not be a choice but a preference and often times they are preferences because it's so much more complex than just the existence of the map. It can fall completely towards Art rather than Game Design. Maps that are so uniquely placed and drawn that you feel excited just walking. Linear plots that have two branches one with a red town icon showing the main mission and other icons showing towns with sidequests. Elaborate neighboring towns and caverns where you walk past by a couple of towns on the map to create a illusion of a long journey.
Pages:
1
