One critical component to RPGs that can often be overlooked: the sense of adventure

[Old Hans]

i always liked the idea of your party planning out their route, preparing and moving across the map and running into unique obstacles that would require skill checks. There is a table top RPG based on middle earth called The One Ring that does this & its very cool idea

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Bethesda games should have you covered, Crispy !

Bethesda games are the exact opposite and exactly what the OP is arguing against.
Most 'open world' games are just one small area you can roam around in, compare this to a game that has many hubs spread out over diverse environments.

Also the "compass" is the antithesis of adventure.

 

[laclongquan]

If you mean sense of adventure, then Morrowind fit the bill somewhat.

I dont mean the small dungeon maps. I mean the picturesque outside. Often, you can not expect what you gonna see when you arrive at a place.

While it's guilty of hiking sim, "a sense of adventure" is part and parcel of that subgenre.

 

[Tito Anic]

thread


p.s. Seriously? Play Elex, Gothic(1,2,3), Dark Souls, Fallout NV, Arx Fatalis, Geneforge (2,3,4,5), MM:WoX, MM6, W7, W&W

 

[Reinhardt]

If BG1 was made today, Bhaalspawn would get to lvl 2 for finishing Candlekeep chores and lvl 3 for visiting Friendly Arm Inn, while collecting at least half dozen magic items. And that's exactly what we see in PoE and Kingmaker.

 

[Trashos]

Low level AD&D shits on high level AD&D. And one reason is because low level RNG destroys casuals who don't bother to learn how to increase their chances of success by learning rules and mechanics.

I really do not see the argument for BG2 SoA levels (lvl 6-17 for Wizard). You are still in grave danger there unless you know what you are doing. Maybe not in ALL fights, but in many fights. And at the same time one is not as susceptible to bad rolls as in BG1 (although keep in mind that I have not played BG1 more than a couple of times, so I may be missing stuff -I am a BG2 fan, not a BG1 fan). For exactly this reason, BG2 is much more rewarding to good planning and tactics than BG1 is, afaic. I see absolutely no point in losing a fight where I do everything well, just because the RNG said so, the same way that I do not see the point in winning a fight just because the RNG said so.

 

[Daedalos]

Why do Crispy threads always put me in a bad mood?

Anyway: The sense of adventure for me always stems from how the story engages me, how the atmosphere and world building grips me, and how tightly the narrative and quest structure is interwoven with the choices I do, and how its reflected back to me as it happens.

A sense of adventure doesn't really have anything to do with open world for me.

It can be the smallest game in the world for 5 hours, that can absolutely grip me for those 5 hours, if they manage to engage me in the above mentioned ways. Open world often enough disappoints and only dillutes RPGS rather than expand and improve upon them.

 

[Lilura]

I am a BG2 fan, not a BG1 fan.

Into the iggy bin it goes.

 

[Reinhardt]

You are still in grave danger there unless you know what you are doing.

So if you are not playing first time - you are NEVER in any danger.

 

[Atrachasis]

As others have already pointed out, map size is probably not decisive in creating this intangible "feeling of adventure". Isn't it rather just a matter of how the regions of a game world are characterized by their writing and content? The "feeling of aventure" probably arises, more than anything else, from venturing out into the Unknown, travelling beyond the frontier of civilization. If everywhere I go the landscape is dotted with towns, inns, and shops, no matter the size of the world, it will lack in this regard. A fairly confined world map with a good contrast between "civilized" and "untamed" regions, however, may do the trick.

I feel that this may be easier to pull off in an open world map, because the hub structure always implies that you were meant by the designer to be at this specific location to progress this plot, while open world maps allow for a contrast between regions of low and high density content, which is a little more in line with the feeling of travelling the Unknown. But a good mixture of hubs - some plot-relevant, some only for sidequests or for open exploration, may instill the same sensation, whille an open map with too little heterogeneity in its content will fail.

To give some examples: Morrowind featured a fairly small landmass by today's standards, but the Ashlands and especially the area within the Ghost Fence were properly characterized as dangerous, untamed wilderness, compared to the settlements closer to the coast. Sense of adventure: Check! Ultima had major population centers and a well-maintained road network. But venturing to the Isle of the Avatar or into the Stygian Abyss, or even just a little away from the main roads? Sense of Adventure: Check! Witcher 3: Now, this may be highly subjective, but to me, this "sense of adventure" felt more tangible on Undvik, being abandoned with no current settlements, than almost anywhere else. Even though the island is, by area alone, tiny in comparison to the rest of the game world. Check!

Oblivion and its ilk provide the counter-example. Open maps, sure, but points of interest, including towns, are sprinkled so liberally over the map that it feels like a theme park. In a similar vein, space games that only ever let me approach planets via spaceports and space stations, rather than choose to touch down on an unexplored world's surface, completely fail to instill that feeling of adventure in me, despite offering what would, in terms of numbers alone, the vastest game world you could ask for.

 

[V_K]

Honestly, dying to RNG in a game with saving mechanic brings zero sense of adventure and a lot of sense of frustration and annoyance. Sense of adventure comes from not knowing what to expect, not from having control over your success or failure taken away from you.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

The "feeling of aventure" probably arises, more than anything else, from venturing out into the Unknown

Exactly. This is the reason why streamlined modern AAA games aren't able to stimulate any "feeling of adventure". I clearly get this feeling when I play some old adventure (no pun int.) games, such as the Quest for Glory series and even the first Leisure Suit Larry, or old RPGs, such as Pool of Radiance, more than any modern "RPG", such as The Witcher 3.

 

[Alpan]

In a similar vein, space games that only ever let me approach planets via spaceports and space stations, rather than choose to touch down on an unexplored world's surface, completely fail to instill that feeling of adventure in me, despite offering what would, in terms of numbers alone, the vastest game world you could ask for.

I liked the way Freelancer did this -- the player visits the majority of star systems during the story campaign, but there's still quite a bit of additional exploration you can do post-game, with its own star systems, ships and other rewards, as well as flavor.

In response to the original post, I would suggest that the sense of adventure is easier found in roguelikes. An adventure implies a certain encounter with and adaptability to unknown situations, and good roguelikes ask this improvisation of the player almost all the time.

 

[V_K]

In response to the original post, I would suggest that the sense of adventure is easier found in roguelikes. An adventure implies a certain encounter with and adaptability to unknown situations, and good roguelikes ask this improvisation of the player almost all the time.

Can't agree with that. Typical roguelikes are too trial-and-error, they only way to uncover their mysteries is to meet them head-on and die. Because of that they start out very unfocused, because you have no idea what you're doing; and by the time you can achieve any reasonable success, they get repetitive - because there's no way of knowing what to prepare for other than having already experienced it with a previous character. Besides, most rogulikes are the definition of claustrophobic, progressing in a linear sequence of rather small levels.
There are exceptions to both of these rules, of course - Unexplored, Caves of Qud - but that's what they are, exceptions.

 

[Trashos]

You are still in grave danger there unless you know what you are doing.

So if you are not playing first time - you are NEVER in any danger.

I would not say so. It took me several BG2 playthroughs until I felt I was in control. Even now after all these years, for certain fights I have to focus hard to avoid disaster. (note that I do avoid certain cheesy tactics that simplify things, however)

 

[Machocruz]

Cataclysm DDA is another roguelike that pulls it off, especially for beginner to intermediate players who haven't experienced most of the content. The neverending world and random generation of it and its inhabitants means you never know what you'll come across once you set off in any direction. And what is an adventure without risk or danger? The world is fraught with them. Resource scarcity, unsatisfactory starting location, curiosity, or boredom will eventually force you to travel/migrate into places unknown. Sheer map size is a boon to adventure in the case of this game.

 

[Reinhardt]

For proper adventure you need party. You can't adventure alone.

 

[mondblut]

For proper adventure you need party. You can't adventure alone.

You must gather your party before venturing forth, indeed.

 

[V_K]

The real adventure begins after the party, when you're going to the STD clinic. That's when you get to experience the real thrill of not knowing what you're going to find - or, more exactly, what they're going to find.

 

[nyjsu]

Great post.
I feel that New Vegas conveyed the adventuring feel really well as the wasteland was packed full of interesting things and characters which you could discover just by wandering without any particular goal. Another one that comes to mind is Dragon's dogma. Gransys was really small but all the areas had a very distinct feel to them which created this illusion of a vast and diverse fantasy world that you really wanted to explore.

 

[DraQ]

I think I grok this sense of adventure and in many ways would consider it THE most important part of any genre where you're wandering about with a limited number of protagonists.

It does not necessarily correlate with game being open world, more like it is based on how the game manages to remove player from their comfort zone by any means necessary and to defy player's expectations as the game unfolds. It might be through unexpected locations or unexpected twists, or putting player in the middle of unfamiliar territory faster and more decisively than they'd prefer, without option to simply backtrack (which is usually not what happens in open world games).

If you know what's going to happen next, it's not exactly an adventure, is it?

BG1 comes as close to conveying a sense of adventure and looming dread as it gets without being explicitly open-world.

How is BG1 anything but an explicitly open world game?

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

All the greatest RPGs in history gave you room to roam. Fallout had you driving around in the desert and visiting other towns across a large map. Torment had many distinct areas and realities to get lost in. Arcanum seemed huge and wondrous right after crashing in the dirigible. And none of these are even considered to be "open world" RPGs.

Aren't they not considered "open world" only because the phrase wasn't used when they came up and when it gained popularity it was quickly associated with 3d action games?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

All the greatest RPGs in history gave you room to roam. Fallout had you driving around in the desert and visiting other towns across a large map. Torment had many distinct areas and realities to get lost in. Arcanum seemed huge and wondrous right after crashing in the dirigible. And none of these are even considered to be "open world" RPGs.

Aren't they not considered "open world" only because the phrase wasn't used when they came up and when it gained popularity it was quickly associated with 3d action games?

They're not considered open world because they're not open world.
Well, Arcanum is debatable. It's really a weird one.

 

[DraQ]

All the greatest RPGs in history gave you room to roam. Fallout had you driving around in the desert and visiting other towns across a large map. Torment had many distinct areas and realities to get lost in. Arcanum seemed huge and wondrous right after crashing in the dirigible. And none of these are even considered to be "open world" RPGs.

Aren't they not considered "open world" only because the phrase wasn't used when they came up and when it gained popularity it was quickly associated with 3d action games?

Arcanum is very much open world by any reasonable definition. So are Fallouts. PS:T is not open world because your progress across different locations is explicitly driven by the plot.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

All the greatest RPGs in history gave you room to roam. Fallout had you driving around in the desert and visiting other towns across a large map. Torment had many distinct areas and realities to get lost in. Arcanum seemed huge and wondrous right after crashing in the dirigible. And none of these are even considered to be "open world" RPGs.

Aren't they not considered "open world" only because the phrase wasn't used when they came up and when it gained popularity it was quickly associated with 3d action games?

Arcanum is very much open world by any reasonable definition. So are Fallouts. PS:T is not open world because your progress across different locations is explicitly driven by the plot.

How the hell are FO1/2 considered "open world"?
They're hub based.