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.

How to do open world RPG the right way ?

fantadomat

Arcane
Edgy Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
37,083
Location
Bulgaria
Piranha Bytes have some really good open world design.Their levels always make me want to explore a lot.Witcher 3 have some good design but too much pointless MMO tosh.Although their DLC Blood and wine is better in that regard,it have a lot less collecting pointless trash around the map and more short stories(side quests) that are connected to the main quest.A good open world RPG should integrate all that tosh in some kind of side quests that have decent story and make the player feel like he is progressing and accomplishing something.It shouldn't be like "Oh i found another chest with bunch of shit equipment and my prize is that it won't be on my map"
 

wyes gull

Savant
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
424
If we're talking F/TPS open world, I'm of the opinion that the games won't improve/reach their potential until they basically shed 90% of what they purport their "RPG" shell to be. There's nothing stupider than having to sword somebody 50 times in the face because "they're a higher level"/"your sword is cheap"/"your Long Sword skill is too low", at least in beautifully rendered, high definition 3D. And it's worse gameplay than a Meet n' Fuck game.

They need to respect the fact that the games are inherently skill-based and not placate players with stupid concessions like leveling up small guns turns your bb gun into a bazooka, actively making action gameplay worse just to have a RPG sticker on the cover.

Leveling should be a binary affair. Your character either knows how to fish or not. How good a fisherman depends on how skilled the player is at it. Or at least a none/basic/advanced/master- tiered affair, where the different tiers offer new gameplay mechanics (or just access to better equipment) but don't make the existing ones redundant.

About the game that makes the best compromise in this sense is Mount & Blade. But then, the majority of the skills in question are insubstantial (as in, numbers that increase other numbers). The ones that are, the weapons skills, make absolutely no sense in their implementation. A 402 (out of 500 or 600 or whatever the cap is, but then that's just a sign the turks didn't really think the endgame through) bow skill character is no more "the developed character that I made myself through my choices" than a 3/4 bowman. If you're playing a skill-based game, you shouldn't need a chime and some sparkly letters every 5 minutes telling you you've gained the ability to improve skill X by 0.1% like some idiot playing a shitty mmo. The gameplay should be enough. Equipment should matter, sure, but in a M&B way, where it has tangible mechanical differences (at least the weapons, shame the armors don't) and most of it isn't rendered completely obsolete.

If we're talking 2D/iso/TBS, Fallout pretty much did it right. Bigger, prettier, more detailed- sure. But the foundation is there already.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,103
People are too hung up on obsolete RPG conventions. All this stuff like levels, hitpoints, increasing damage, armor, etc they are just carry-overs from the days when gaming was much more abstract and had to use these high level concepts. RPG devs should instead focus on the spirit of the RPG, and adapt it to modern technology and possibilities. KCD is a game that at least on paper is trying to do this.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
288
The whole purpose of an open world is to bring some randomness or emergent story into the experience. This is why a good open world should be dynamic, think Mount & Blade or Space Rangers. Different factions should be fighting for control of the parts of the world. In Mount & Blade the factions are more or less equal, so without player's input they will eternally take border towns from each other, but neither one will win the war. In Space Rangers one faction is slowly taking over the world, and will succeed if the player does nothing. These are two different options, but either of them justifies the open world approach.
 

Storyfag

Perfidious Pole
Patron
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
15,893
Location
Stealth Orbital Nuke Control Centre
No levels as DnD gave them to us. Just new skills every so often and mayyybe some additional HP, but never more than twice the starting pool. Makes those goblins from the starting village a threat or at the very least a factor even in the endgame.
 

Luckmann

Arcane
Zionist Agent
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
3,759
Location
Scandinavia
oh yes, "huge map as big as texas, with every bush hand placed, fully voiced npcs at every street corner with their own agendas and scripts, whole quests archs changing according to previously done quests...".
nigga please.
CDY2ESJ.png
 

undecaf

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
3,517
Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2
People are too hung up on obsolete RPG conventions. All this stuff like levels, hitpoints, increasing damage, armor, etc they are just carry-overs from the days when gaming was much more abstract

I like those conventions and the abstract. They're fun.

What I don't like, and what has been the bane of the genre for well over a decade is them going away and being replaced by visual "hands-on" simulation.


---------------------
More on topic.
Fallout (1&2) does the concept of the open world well because it understands to abstract the vast distances rather than boring the player with it through manual hoofing and by miniaturizing the world senseless.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,103
I like those conventions and the abstract. They're fun.

What I don't like, and what has been the bane of the genre for well over a decade is them going away and being replaced by visual "hands-on" simulation.

That's probably because you grew up on Bethesda games, and you think that's what passes for simulation.

Ultimately, abstract stat based implementations will always be less fun than in-depth simulation, since it inherently implies simplification and non-involved game-play. Think of a Fallout/Age of Decadence type dialogue for example, which is a simple stat check, vs a deeply simulated conversation system with reading between the lines, watching their facial expressions, doing research into the topic of conversation, and so on. It's not even close.
 

undecaf

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
3,517
Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2
That's probably because you grew up on Bethesda games

Nope. I didn't even play Arean or Daggerfall back in the day.

Ultimately, abstract stat based implementations will always be less fun than in-depth simulation, since it inherently implies simplification and non-involved game-play.

I can't agree with that. Less fun to whom? Non-involved to whom? I have more fun with the combat of original Wasteland than most (if not all) of these new-age hack and slashes. It's not non-involved, it's differently involved.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,103
I can't agree with that. Less fun to whom? Non-involved to whom? I have more fun with the combat of original Wasteland than most (if not all) of these new-age hack and slashes. It's not non-involved, it's differently involved.

You are supporting my point though. These "hack-n-slashes" are terrible for the most part. If KCD manages to introduce a realistic melee combat system, you will see how different that will be from a typical mindless button mashing combat of Skyrim. Up to now, most action based melee combat is simply reflex based, or just spam-based. A technique driven action combat system would be like day and night with that.
 

undecaf

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
3,517
Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2
If KCD manages to introduce a realistic melee combat system, you will see how different that will be from a typical mindless button mashing combat of Skyrim.

Sure, and I hope it does well what it does, but my point is that I don't really care about "realistic" melee combat - what ever "realistic" might be understood as here. I grew up with games where taking the abstact and making what I could of it was a requirement, and that's still what I prefer over hectic control acrobatics however well done they might be for their intended purpose.
 

NotAGolfer

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
2,527
Location
Land of Bier and Bratwurst
Divinity: Original Sin 2
I don't really care if games use numbers on spreadsheets and a board game like ruleset or if they use physics engine simulations and reflex-based real time combat to determine the outcome of game challenges.
The only thing I care about is whether what they are using is fun. And if character growth (unlockable skills, item progression, new moves, new tactics, whatever) is a major component to the formula and not just tacked on like in Ubisoft shooters.

But don't mind me, please keep on sperging.
Would be awesome if it wasn't an everything and the kitchen sink kind of discussion again though but one about specific issues with open world ArrrrPeeeeGeeee design (like: player decides where to go and what to do in which order so how do you create a good difficulty curve for most players?).
 
Last edited:

rezaf

Cipher
Joined
Jan 26, 2015
Messages
650
How can a thread like this go on for three friggin' pages without anyone giving Darklands at least a honorable mention?
:killit:
 

Falksi

Arcane
Joined
Feb 14, 2017
Messages
10,538
Location
Nottingham
As others have said, Gothic 2 + Morrowind show how core elements should be handled to make for great Open World gaming. Personally I think there should be way more focus on the main story, and way less concern about world size, than in recent years.
The open worlds should be there to provide additional depth to the main focus of the game. Not dilute or totally distract from it.
I extend that to side quests too. I find side quests to be way more interesting if they unearth or extend on elements from the main plotlines.
Obviously there's a balance to all thus and you can't tie everything in with the main plot. But the main plot should always feel relevant in some way.
 

DJOGamer PT

Arcane
Joined
Apr 8, 2015
Messages
7,347
Location
Lusitânia
If we're talking F/TPS open world games won't improve/reach their potential until they basically shed 90% of what they purport their "RPG" shell to be ....

They need to respect the fact that the games are inherently skill-based ... actively making action gameplay worse just to have a RPG sticker on the cover.

Leveling should be a binary affair...

About the game that makes the best compromise in this sense is Mount & Blade...

Then that's stops being an RPG and becomes a Action game. Also there are other things to RPG's besides the combat where stats/skills can come into play.

People are too hung up on obsolete RPG conventions. All this stuff like levels, hitpoints, increasing damage, armor, etc they are just carry-overs from the days when gaming was much more abstract and had to use these high level concepts

You seem to forget that an RPG's is a abstact game genre in it's core, and need those high level concepts to work properly.

These "hack-n-slashes" are terrible for the most part. If KCD manages to introduce a realistic melee combat system

KCD combat will either be to boring or to much of a clusterfuck to be enjoyed or even played properly, just because the devs were trying to be "realistic". Hope the game delivers in every other aspect though.

Up to now, most action based melee combat is simply reflex based, or just spam-based. A technique driven action combat system would be like day and night with that.

Those '' technique driven action combat system '' already exist for quite sometime.

The whole purpose of an open world is to bring some randomness or emergent gameplay into the experience.

Fixed.
 

DragoFireheart

all caps, rainbow colors, SOMETHING.
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
23,731
Step 1: Don't be a pussy faggot and be afraid of "hard stuff". Put hard monsters in areas that someone new can easily stumble on. Have them act as a "barrier" to encourage new players which way to go. Dumb players win dumb rewards, but smart players that can sneak past (or actually beat) the monsters should be rewarded.

Step 2: Include a weapon durability system. Strong weapons must break easily enough to not be abused the entire game.

Step 3: Don't be a fucking dick with level scaling. Use it in small amounts to add challenge but still hand-place hard shit and powerful rewards. Don't have fucking bandits with end gear armor that they wouldn't normally have!

Step 4: Let people actually go anywhere! Don't be a cunt: don't lock shit out because muh storyline. If you must do so, keep it to a bare minimum and only for small segments. 99% of the game should be accessible if I'm smart/suicidal enough.

Step 5: If you must have DLC, make it integrated as possible. Having the DLC be in some cut-off area feels unnatural and only reminds us that's it's a separate game and not part of the game.

Step 6: Don't hire shitty voice actors. Don't have merchants have voice acting.
 

Luckmann

Arcane
Zionist Agent
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
3,759
Location
Scandinavia
People are too hung up on obsolete RPG conventions. All this stuff like levels, hitpoints, increasing damage, armor, etc they are just carry-overs from the days when gaming was much more abstract

I like those conventions and the abstract. They're fun.

What I don't like, and what has been the bane of the genre for well over a decade is them going away and being replaced by visual "hands-on" simulation.
I was assuming he was being ironic. Nobody is really quite that retarded.
 
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
78
Is weapon durability fun mechanic? I still remember I hated fighting the stone golems in arcanum because your weapons would break. Everytime you het them with your sword your sword also takes considerable amount of dmg. So I had to use cheap swords which made the combat just last longer and feel more grindy.

It really sucks if there are unique weapons in the game and you need to carry multiple weapons just so you don't accidentally wear out an item. Use the weapon until it has 1% life left and then change to your 2nd best weapon and repeat. And oh the joys of micromanaging your party members equipment so herbergerber the dumb fucking giant does not accidentally wear out his one in a trillion two handed sword of amazement.

I don't think it is a fun game mechanic. Do people actually like to occasionally sharpen and maintain a sword/gun/axe in a game just so they don't wear and in worst case they don't vanish because you accidentally hit 0%?
 

Quillon

Arcane
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
5,214
It was fun melting the same equipment into one that will rule them all in NV.
 

Carrion

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Messages
3,648
Location
Lost in Necropolis
Is weapon durability fun mechanic?
Yes. Arcanum golems are actually a very good example on how it can add another layer of decision-making into a game. It can also be used to make items stand out more from each other, e.g. a light but brittle sword versus a heavier and more durable one. However, rather than equipment being permanently destroyed, I prefer some sort of a repair system, as balancing economy is hard in an open world game, and weapon and armor maintenance can provide a useful money sink. Besides, if your game has a single weapon that you can get early on and is better than anything else, there's something wrong with the itemization.

In general I think that open world RPGs would benefit from a flatter power curve, both in equipment and character development. Rather than items having a single damage stat or whatever, give them some different properties that make them feel different from each other, so that finding one great weapon doesn't make every other weapon in the game world obsolete. Also, while starting out as a weakling and ending up a demigod half-way through the game is undeniably appealing, it becomes a nightmare to balance the content so that the game always offers reasonable challenge, especially if the player is allowed to go anywhere from the start. In order to circumvent this problem, some games use a chapter-based structure, others resort to level-scaling, some might put visible level numbers above the enemies' heads, but it's not really ideal. For open world games horizontal growth is generally a better fit than vertical — give the player new abilities instead of just making his numbers go through the roof. It potentially gives you a greater sense of progress (taking out enemies with a new spell or learning to levitate as opposed to just hitting a bit harder with a sword), and it allows for more freedom when it comes to exploration. Of course your numbers can and should go up as well, but not to a point where low-level enemies can't even put a dent in your armor.
 

wyes gull

Savant
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
424
Then that's stops being an RPG and becomes a Action game.

They arguably stop being RPGs once they adapt action game conventions. From then on, they're just pulling the wool over the player's eyes; making concessions to a completely disparate genre (with a different playerbase (originally, at any rate)) for cool points; making the action worse for it while rarely if ever making the RPG any good.

To my mind at any rate, if you want a RPG, you want a game whose outcome is chiefly influenced by character, rather than player skill (extreme cases like Fallout speedruns aside). Action games by definition can't abide by those standards. Either they barely compromise and you end up with something like STALKER or when they do, they're often chided for their gameplay (largely combat): SS2, Deus Ex, Morrowind, Alpha Protocol, Fallout 3...

What I argue is that there are better ways to implement what people consider the "staples" of the RPG that don't make the action any worse. You don't need \10 stats and \100 skills to have: -significant player-influenced character creation/development; -substantial companion interaction; -quests with branching/exclusive outcomes; -influence over the overarching plot; -loot and equipment selection; -general combat tactics. It's probably what Cain was hinting at when he made that last speech where everyone thought he was mad; it's that certain classic RPG conventions (more like MMO conventions) to do with leveling do not make sense in an open-world, action environment. That or you could just largely ignore them and make STALKER 2 and then we all win.
 

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