-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
How do you make an open world without the usual design problems?
- Thread starter SantaC
- Start date
If that's the case then the game probably should't be open-world at all.
Developers need to start thinking about why their games are open-world in the first place. The way I see it there have been traditionally two reasons to do it:
- Provide a sandbox for lots of emergent, choice-based gameplay (GTA, Elite, Minecraft, NMS, maybe Far Cry).
- Create a big mysterious world for players to investigate and discover (Zelda, Elder Scrolls, etc.).
One thing that I particularly enjoy is when a game lets players use and be creative with the map and world itself. A few of my favorite games from this gen are Forza Horizon 3, Hitman, and Steep. These are very different games, but all have a feature allowing players to create challenges within the world and play those created by others.
- In FH3, a racing game, there are spots on the map from which you can create "bucket list challenges," i.e. drive to X point faster than the time I set, or get X amount of skill points in a given time
- In Hitman, each level is a small open-world in and of itself, filled with NPCs. You can create a contract in each of these levels, challenging them to kill targets of your choosing (and you can further specify how).
- In Steep, a snowboarding game, your recent runs are automatically tracked by the game, and you can go back to points along that run and create races or freestyle challenges for others to beat
In all these, the world itself becomes a tool for players themselves to build upon: the road network in FH3, the NPC routines and level layout of Hitman, the mountain traversal of Steep. Now, none of these games are action-adventure or RPGs, and maybe the exact "challenge creation" tool can't be translated to those genres, but I think the broader concept should be taken into mind.
Maybe what I'm saying is: make more sandboxes.
- In FH3, a racing game, there are spots on the map from which you can create "bucket list challenges," i.e. drive to X point faster than the time I set, or get X amount of skill points in a given time
- In Hitman, each level is a small open-world in and of itself, filled with NPCs. You can create a contract in each of these levels, challenging them to kill targets of your choosing (and you can further specify how).
- In Steep, a snowboarding game, your recent runs are automatically tracked by the game, and you can go back to points along that run and create races or freestyle challenges for others to beat
In all these, the world itself becomes a tool for players themselves to build upon: the road network in FH3, the NPC routines and level layout of Hitman, the mountain traversal of Steep. Now, none of these games are action-adventure or RPGs, and maybe the exact "challenge creation" tool can't be translated to those genres, but I think the broader concept should be taken into mind.
Maybe what I'm saying is: make more sandboxes.
Yeah, that's the traditional sandbox playground, which was the original reason to make open-world games in the first place. That's what GTA originally was essentially (and I guess still is if you go online or ignore the main story), that's what Minecraft is, what's what Elite is.
The rapid travel option needs to be rapid. Give the player the option to blaze across the map if they want, because horse travel in giant games like BotW and Witcher 3 is a joke. Keep foot travel the same for those times you want or need to approach things more methodically, but nothing is worse than holding an analog stick in a single direction and watching the distance market decrease over five uneventful minutes.
Step 1: Play Stalker - Clear Sky with the SRP fan patch.
Step 2: Make the best ripoff you possibly can.
Step 2: Make the best ripoff you possibly can.
TW3 fast travel time on an SSD is literally ~3 seconds. Not that I ever did while playing. Going on horse is so enjoyable imo.
1) Quality over quantity as far as quests and quest design goes.
2) don't make any grindy content mandatory for quest completion. Let fighting against basic enemies/wildlife be mostly optional. No "kill and collect the fur of 200 wolves" missions. FFXII's hunts were a decent way of doing monster battling. More special enemies/mega-bosses that test your strength, not just kill 30 weak enemies.
3) make quests that connect to the characters, world-building or narrative.
It's not rocket science. Open world games don't need as much content as they currently have, they've become bloated for no good reason. Breath of the Wild wouldn't have been any worse a game if it had dropped the number of shrines to 1/2 or even 1/3rd of what it currently has. Made a single shrine a bit more special/larger and could've given better rewards per shrine instead of all of them giving shittons of breakable weapons that you'll lose after, like, two enemies.
2) don't make any grindy content mandatory for quest completion. Let fighting against basic enemies/wildlife be mostly optional. No "kill and collect the fur of 200 wolves" missions. FFXII's hunts were a decent way of doing monster battling. More special enemies/mega-bosses that test your strength, not just kill 30 weak enemies.
3) make quests that connect to the characters, world-building or narrative.
It's not rocket science. Open world games don't need as much content as they currently have, they've become bloated for no good reason. Breath of the Wild wouldn't have been any worse a game if it had dropped the number of shrines to 1/2 or even 1/3rd of what it currently has. Made a single shrine a bit more special/larger and could've given better rewards per shrine instead of all of them giving shittons of breakable weapons that you'll lose after, like, two enemies.
AI-generated content and actual AI that reacts to your choices
either that or pay $250 for a game because you're getting 5 games worth of entertainment out of it
either that or pay $250 for a game because you're getting 5 games worth of entertainment out of it
The only perfect open world I've seen was Forza Horizon 3. Of course that was a racing game, so it doesn't exactly apply to most other games (although a lot can be learned from it). I look forward to Playground's new open world game, supposedly Fable.
In my opinion though, the key is to embrace empty space, and make it interesting to explore and see just for the sake of it. Why do we go hiking? To kill animals, assault camps and collect loot? No, we just do it to look at the world around us, be fascinated by it. Games should do this more.
Take Skyrim, for instance. Every ruin you find has something, it's always related to some mission. Wouldn't it be cool if some of it was just a ruin and you could explore it and learn about its former inhabitants just by walking around? It would also make those places where there are people and things to do feel more interesting, unique and exciting.
In my opinion though, the key is to embrace empty space, and make it interesting to explore and see just for the sake of it. Why do we go hiking? To kill animals, assault camps and collect loot? No, we just do it to look at the world around us, be fascinated by it. Games should do this more.
Take Skyrim, for instance. Every ruin you find has something, it's always related to some mission. Wouldn't it be cool if some of it was just a ruin and you could explore it and learn about its former inhabitants just by walking around? It would also make those places where there are people and things to do feel more interesting, unique and exciting.
It will take a very long time until we have the technology to do that in a non soporific way.
I agree. With games like Ghost Recon Wildlands we've hit the size limit. While it's always possible to go even bigger, there is no point to it.
While it's not really quantifiable and thus can't be written on the box/store page, what really matters the content they put inside that world. Yakuza games don' t embarass themselves with huge world, but their cities are filled ti the brim with interesting content.
However empty space can also be valuable. It all depends on the type of game, and the available means of traversal.
This. GTAV is the proof of that. Massive world with lots of great content.
The most obvious way to solve this problem is to make the traversal fun. If travelling in the open world is super-fast and extremely fun, people won't notice the empty space as long as the scenery is beautiful. Example of this is Forza Horizon series, Sunset Overdrive and presumably, Spider man (2018). There might be other ways to solve this but I imagine this is the easiest way to do it.
You can't, it's feasibly impossible to make both a "huge" open world and then to fill it with meaningful content on a large scale. That is why even huge studios like Ubisoft with their gigantic dev teams and budgets still have a bunch of copy paste style content and a focus on "collectibles" in order to pad out the world and give the player something to find/look for within those empty areas.
You have to make a choice at that scale, you can focus on quality over quantity with more varied content and in depth things scatter more loosely around the world or you can litter it with a bunch of easy to design copy and paste content that makes the world seem "fuller" when it comes to content (but generally repetitive by nature).
Finding a balance between both is what most open world games strive for. Personally I'm for quality>quantity. I'd rather have an open world like Mafia I and II and instead have them focus on giving a great storyline and characters then to have an open world that's filled with a bunch of repetitive side content and busywork like Mafia 3 was.
You have to make a choice at that scale, you can focus on quality over quantity with more varied content and in depth things scatter more loosely around the world or you can litter it with a bunch of easy to design copy and paste content that makes the world seem "fuller" when it comes to content (but generally repetitive by nature).
Finding a balance between both is what most open world games strive for. Personally I'm for quality>quantity. I'd rather have an open world like Mafia I and II and instead have them focus on giving a great storyline and characters then to have an open world that's filled with a bunch of repetitive side content and busywork like Mafia 3 was.
This isn't about 100%ing a given open-world game, though. Most games like that have a ton of extra collectibles or whatever just to keep players interested post-game. The great thing about BotW is that you can experience as little or as much of it as you want to. After getting your slate abilities and paraglider, you can just charge into Hyrule Castle and end it right then and there if you want (and if you're good enough), or you can spend 300+ hours turning over every stone and clearing every challenge. It's all up to you. If the game forced all its optional content on you (e.g., if it required the four Divine Beasts to be cleared, or if you needed X number of Korok Seeds to progress in various ways), then that would be bad open-world design.
I think BOTW is a good place to start.
A lot of these places rather feel more handcrafted and thought with the clear idea of the feeling of exploration, rather than putting in as much as feasible and creating a place that looks "real". What you can find on certain places (besides major places and buildings), yes that can be ranked up but this is rather a time/content problem than a worlddesign problem.
The Zelda team even test played A LOT during development to see how all of this works out and this is one of they key things from creating all kind of levels in a videogame. If your whole design philosophy doesn't evolve around a random generated world, you can only get so far to implement certain exploring-mechanics in such a world while still giving players the option how they arrive a new place and giving them the sensation of excitement and uncertainty.
On a smaller scale but with more simulation look no further than Hitman.
So many possibilities and choices, great systemic game design and things to learn from these microworlds, the more you play them.
So good.
A lot of these places rather feel more handcrafted and thought with the clear idea of the feeling of exploration, rather than putting in as much as feasible and creating a place that looks "real". What you can find on certain places (besides major places and buildings), yes that can be ranked up but this is rather a time/content problem than a worlddesign problem.
The Zelda team even test played A LOT during development to see how all of this works out and this is one of they key things from creating all kind of levels in a videogame. If your whole design philosophy doesn't evolve around a random generated world, you can only get so far to implement certain exploring-mechanics in such a world while still giving players the option how they arrive a new place and giving them the sensation of excitement and uncertainty.
On a smaller scale but with more simulation look no further than Hitman.
So many possibilities and choices, great systemic game design and things to learn from these microworlds, the more you play them.
So good.
Small but dense, yes. That's the way.
It is not difficult to add scale to a 3D model and make the world appear momentarily vast. It is not that difficult either to copy paste generic gameplay systems and assets and pretend there's an endless amount of things to do.
Just scale down your maps, spend more time on variety, depth and the fine details.
They'll get it sooner of later, everyone kind of understands this by now.
It is not difficult to add scale to a 3D model and make the world appear momentarily vast. It is not that difficult either to copy paste generic gameplay systems and assets and pretend there's an endless amount of things to do.
Just scale down your maps, spend more time on variety, depth and the fine details.
They'll get it sooner of later, everyone kind of understands this by now.
Yes, basically this. People who hate open world games won't play open world games. There are a huge market who love them.
There are people out there who actually love huge open world games with several cities and landmarks. Developers, please don't listen to ERA.
Do you really need to find all the collectibles in every other open world games though?
One of the biggest problems for open-world games has always been a misguided way of thinking about "content". There seems to be this constant need of "doing" something, which developers then have to satiate by throwing in busywork to fill up bars... when you've been "doing" things all along. Being in the world, traversing it, finding stuff, that's the appeal in the first place. It's just that some games handle it better than others but negative space in itself isn't a problem as much as it is a conscious design choice. It's like picking up Call of Duty and complaining about how much shooting there is.
It really does seem to be just budget and manpower. To make an open world with unique assets for every location and interior takes a ridiculous amount of resources, along with unique NPCs, dialog and hand crafted quests.
Not sure why BOTW keeps getting brought up, that game shares a bunch of the same issues as every other open world game.
Not sure why BOTW keeps getting brought up, that game shares a bunch of the same issues as every other open world game.
Last edited:
Isn't the new Hitman basically open world, on a smaller scale, but with more interactivity and simulation?
That's something you won't get in bigger open worlds, due to time and budget constraints obviously.
Also, GTA 5 is like a perfect open world game imo. I can't think of anything it could do better under realistic circumstances (more accessible buildings would be an obvious thing, but as mentioned: budget constraints).
That's something you won't get in bigger open worlds, due to time and budget constraints obviously.
Also, GTA 5 is like a perfect open world game imo. I can't think of anything it could do better under realistic circumstances (more accessible buildings would be an obvious thing, but as mentioned: budget constraints).
It doesn't share the no. 1 problem people seem to bring up: a map cluttered with to-do symbols, that take your attention away from the actual world and makes you focus on the map instead. Not many games do it like this, if any, and no game has done it as excellently as BotW.
Last edited:
Yup, it's even lacking in some areas compared to other open world games. More specifically big, proper cities with dense population, narrative focus on quests, etc. There's no doubt that BOTW excels in gameplay, but it doesn't mean that it has the best open world as a whole package. It's just doing different thing compared to others.
You can simply hide the symbols, some games have that option. And boom, BOTW open world.
No you can't. BotW is one of the very few games built with the concept in mind that you explore the world yourself, guided by landmarks and such, not minimap markers. Most "follow the minimap marker" open world games are designed vice versa - they don't offer memorizable enough worlds. Far Cry 4 or your typical Assassin's Creed comes to my mind.
You're talking about quest objective, while we're talking about optional markers for collectibles or side quests here. You can simply turn the markers off, explore the world and complete them as you find them. Even BOTW has quest objective marked on your map.
One big issue with most large open worlds is that they're designed for fast travel while fast travel inherently invalidates most of the reasons to have a large open world in the first place. Way too many quests bounce you from one end of the map to the other and then you need to get back just to collect your reward. In this situation, the whole open world is reduced to 2 lengthy loading screens between the quest giver and the quest area.
I think BotW got it quite right. It seems the most "natural" open world. Having people stand around giving you silly quests with markers above their heads is the price we have to pay for a huge open world.
Not sure how a bigger budget would tackle that. Consider an "adventure in the real world" as an example. You would not find yourself going around talking to all the people doing stupid quests while the world is at peril. So I guess it's a compromise that has to be made within the setting of a game.
Or you do something more GTA-esque where most of the NPC's don't really have meaningful dialogue.
Not sure how a bigger budget would tackle that. Consider an "adventure in the real world" as an example. You would not find yourself going around talking to all the people doing stupid quests while the world is at peril. So I guess it's a compromise that has to be made within the setting of a game.
Or you do something more GTA-esque where most of the NPC's don't really have meaningful dialogue.
I don't feel BotW is the way to go. I don't want a world so empty that I can pick out the few points of interest by climbing a tower.
I think the solution is to make traversal either incredibly fun and fast or dangerous. Dangerous is my preferred option. I think it's why I liked Morrowind.
Here's an idea to improve botw: ditch the stamina meter when just running. It has obvious uses while climbing. While running? What, just to regulate me pressing the button? This applies to ffxv and dragons dogma too!!!
Here's an idea to improve botw: ditch the stamina meter when just running. It has obvious uses while climbing. While running? What, just to regulate me pressing the button? This applies to ffxv and dragons dogma too!!!
Fallout 3 and NV are magical experiences for the first few hours when you actually need to go places and it feels like a dangerous journey to do so. Then you've unlocked so many magical teleportation points all across the map that all of that just goes away.
I felt this way tool. The games feel designed around fast travel, and I don't like that. In Fallout 3 specifically some portions of the map have a dearth of unowned beds for instance. They expect you to teleport somewhere to heal.
The trick is not to ask 'how can i fill the world with enough game content?' but instead 'how can i make traversal/exploration of the world fun enough that it is itself the game content?' Start with the moment to moment gameplay and then design the world to match it, not vice versa.
LOZ: Breath Of The Wild nails it, and that should be the level to aspire to. A lot of people complain about the so-called "repetitive" nature of finding a Korok Seed, or that there are combat trials of varying strengths, but even there, there are subtle differences which one can use - Many just don't care to use them. For example, some of those take place in shallow water, or have movable surfaces, or destructible pillars. So, you can use Cryonis and Magnesis as defence mechanisms. To my mind, a lot of these examples are more creativity and gameplay ideas born out of limitations, but at the same time, I would also say that "repetitiveness" isn't necessarily a "bad" thing in all cases. Concert pianists still play their scales, even though they will be familiar with them, and in the context of a video game, trials exist to make you think about how you might use the tools you have, rather than take for granted that they're there. There's an island which drives these lessons home, and hardens you as a player in the process.
Somebody mentioned the point of "trying to 100% everything", so, I'll try to address it in relation to open-world design. Can't help but feel the problem lies within that statement. Once more, to cite LOZ: Breath Of The Wild, one of the most endearing elements of this game is that it doesn't say you have "21 of X", and it doesn't tell you what percentage of the game you have completed. When you unlock a tower, you aren't told where to go, where the sidequests are, and your map isn't overloaded with information. Furthermore, shrines and various locations aren't marked on the map until you've been to them yourself. I don't view this as a "negative" point. It's a marked difference from the so-called "AAA/Ubisoft towers". When you feel you've done enough, you can go and "Destroy Ganon". I had completed every shrine and all of the Divine Beasts. I had unlocked every tower, found about 71 of God Knows How Many Korok Seeds, and done even more. I felt I had enough slots in my weapon, bow and shield stashes, and had my special weapons on the wall in a house. It was only when I completed the game that I was told I had discovered 28% - I didn't view this as a "negative" point at all. There was something rather very liberating about the fact, and that's BEFORE mentioning the DLC. Put another way, I don't believe that the primary aim of an "open-world" title should ever be "to 100% everything". The AAA industry loves numbers as a means to justify escalating development costs, and overloading maps with information is very much a way of telling those who buy into it "Look at all of this stuff you can do!!" - It's also resulted in some very bad gameplay design choices. Not only has the player lost an appetite for trial and error or self-discovery, they've also lost that "child-like" sense of curiosity. At the same time, the AAA industry continues to hide behind those numbers, and add to its excess, which also serves as a cover for its collective lack of confidence in their own ability to create compelling worlds and tell stories in ways that don't simply imitate cinema. They've become afraid of the art of play, of being video games, and the number of possibilities that presents.
I feel that "Story" must take a back seat, or, at least, it shouldn't get in the way because it isn't the most important thing in this case. Space and tranquil spots are important because you need room for contemplation. Collectively, the gaming community has been conditioned to believe that "Story" is the most important, but in an open-world title, you risk "pressing A to turn the page" and playing out the scenario as if you were reading a book - A lot of games fall into that trap, to a point where they cease to be "open-world", or where they make the player start worrying about missing out on content as a result of permutations, and lead them into that trap.
Somebody mentioned the point of "trying to 100% everything", so, I'll try to address it in relation to open-world design. Can't help but feel the problem lies within that statement. Once more, to cite LOZ: Breath Of The Wild, one of the most endearing elements of this game is that it doesn't say you have "21 of X", and it doesn't tell you what percentage of the game you have completed. When you unlock a tower, you aren't told where to go, where the sidequests are, and your map isn't overloaded with information. Furthermore, shrines and various locations aren't marked on the map until you've been to them yourself. I don't view this as a "negative" point. It's a marked difference from the so-called "AAA/Ubisoft towers". When you feel you've done enough, you can go and "Destroy Ganon". I had completed every shrine and all of the Divine Beasts. I had unlocked every tower, found about 71 of God Knows How Many Korok Seeds, and done even more. I felt I had enough slots in my weapon, bow and shield stashes, and had my special weapons on the wall in a house. It was only when I completed the game that I was told I had discovered 28% - I didn't view this as a "negative" point at all. There was something rather very liberating about the fact, and that's BEFORE mentioning the DLC. Put another way, I don't believe that the primary aim of an "open-world" title should ever be "to 100% everything". The AAA industry loves numbers as a means to justify escalating development costs, and overloading maps with information is very much a way of telling those who buy into it "Look at all of this stuff you can do!!" - It's also resulted in some very bad gameplay design choices. Not only has the player lost an appetite for trial and error or self-discovery, they've also lost that "child-like" sense of curiosity. At the same time, the AAA industry continues to hide behind those numbers, and add to its excess, which also serves as a cover for its collective lack of confidence in their own ability to create compelling worlds and tell stories in ways that don't simply imitate cinema. They've become afraid of the art of play, of being video games, and the number of possibilities that presents.
I feel that "Story" must take a back seat, or, at least, it shouldn't get in the way because it isn't the most important thing in this case. Space and tranquil spots are important because you need room for contemplation. Collectively, the gaming community has been conditioned to believe that "Story" is the most important, but in an open-world title, you risk "pressing A to turn the page" and playing out the scenario as if you were reading a book - A lot of games fall into that trap, to a point where they cease to be "open-world", or where they make the player start worrying about missing out on content as a result of permutations, and lead them into that trap.
No, you don't. You can do as much or as little exploring as you enjoy. The Korok quest is just straight-up not fun though, lol. When you reach that many of a collectible you've gone a little too far. Unless they're the primary objective of the whole game (see: Mario Odyssey).
I'd honestly eliminate fast travel altogether and use that as incentive to design multiple layers of enjoyable high-speed methods of traversal that unlock as you progress in the game (think of Final Fantasy's layers for an example: on foot -> chocobo -> airship).
Also, for the most part, depth and interactivity > breadth. I love stuff like DX:MD's Prague when it comes to "overworlds."
Also, for the most part, depth and interactivity > breadth. I love stuff like DX:MD's Prague when it comes to "overworlds."
I would ague that there are so many korok seeds in the world that any player could stumble upon enough to get a satisfactory amount of upgrades. However you reach a point of diminishing returns where its costing you dozens of seeds for an upgrade. The intent is to not collect them all, rather it is a way to fill the empty space with a small puzzle which makes exploration more fun and it ensures that players will at least be able to make some progress upgrading inventory because odds are they will find a couple out there. Its not a big deal if a player doesn't get even a 1/16th of the total seeds out there.
Yeah, that is definitely the intention. The fact that the "reward" for getting 900 is literally a pile of shit suggests that the game designers didn't actually want you to collect them all, lol. You don't even get anymore inventory upgrades after 440.
I disagree with the premise that repetitive content is a "open world" problem. People point to BotW citing things like the towers or the shrines or the korok seeds. But even linear games have things like this. Like what about 2D platformers where there are hidden collectibles in every level for you to get? Or action games where you're locked into an arena and have to fight a bunch of enemies to move on? Or adventure games where you move from field to dungeon to boss? Every game has a basic gameplay loop, the devs make certain gameplay scenarios and can only design so many. They take those scenarios and place them throughout the game for you to encounter. In a linear game, they're all laid out in order for you but an open world game scatters them. It's really only different in how it's arranged.
In general.
1. World size should be proportional to the speed the player traverses the world
2. The player should have multiple speeds of traversing the world and the world should be broken up into hub spaces that reflect this. Ie fly/drive 3minutes and then explore a designed space on foot
3. Traversal should be inherently fun/interesting
4. Empty space is caused by the difference in speeds of the games various traversal options.
5. Having layers of interactive systems on top of each other that alter the sandbox/give the player tools to manipulate are fun.
In terms of writing just tell the story you want to tell. It's ok if it is short you can add DLC later and if messing with systems is fun players will do that for along time.
1. World size should be proportional to the speed the player traverses the world
2. The player should have multiple speeds of traversing the world and the world should be broken up into hub spaces that reflect this. Ie fly/drive 3minutes and then explore a designed space on foot
3. Traversal should be inherently fun/interesting
4. Empty space is caused by the difference in speeds of the games various traversal options.
5. Having layers of interactive systems on top of each other that alter the sandbox/give the player tools to manipulate are fun.
In terms of writing just tell the story you want to tell. It's ok if it is short you can add DLC later and if messing with systems is fun players will do that for along time.
