A short treatise on open worlds: Or, one of the few ways Skyrim fails

[guitarsniper]

I've been playing several open-world games recently, and had some thoughts on the topic I figured I might as well share.

For me, at least, one of the key parts of an open world is making sure that travel, in and of itself, is an enjoyable experience. In a large open world game you are going to spend significant amounts of time moving from A to B. You can, of course, fast travel everywhere, but then you're missing out on sort of the point of an open world in the first place.

That is one of the few areas in which Skyrim fails. It is, in every other respect pretty much, an excellent game, and one that I definitely enjoy. BUT, when it comes to making travel an enjoyable experience, Skyrim falls somewhat flat. Sure, it is a gorgeous set of vistas to move through, and sure, random encounters with crazy monsters and stuff on the roads do serve to break up the monotony, but other than that travel itself becomes somewhat dull. Other open world games have made travel incredibly fun. Some examples: Batman: Arkham City, Just Cause 2, pretty much every Assassin's Creed game. In fact, Just Cause 2 has what I would consider the perfect travel system: A lot of the time a player (maybe it's just me, maybe not) will look at a place across the map that they need to get to, consider using fast travel to get there, and then decide not to do so. That, in my opinion, is an ideal way to set up getting around your open world: have a fast travel system, but make normal travel so fun that player end up not wanting to use your fast travel.

 

[NeutralDrow]

So Skyrim would have been better if it had been mostly buildings to jump across? Batman and Just Cause have grappling hooks, but that's the only common difference I can think of between Skyrim and Assassin's Creed, the presence of cities (otherwise, both are "walk or use a horse"). I dunno, the method of travel never really stuck me as all that important compared to the things you do while traveling (look at the view, random encounters with crazy monsters, stuff on the roads, etc.).

But then, I loved the sailing in Wind Waker, so I'm biased.

 

[ItsNotRudy]

, but make normal travel so fun that player end up not wanting to use your fast travel.

But not fast-traveling gave you dragons and random camps to find. I found tons of stuff not fast-traveling places. It would be unrealistic to fill every inch with something to loot and something exciting.

 

[endtherapture]

I really think the cities in the next TES game should be bigger and more epic - maybe more like Assassins Creed, filled with nameless people and houses and secret passages across and under the streets.

The "cities" in all TES games (apart from Vivec in Morrowind) all kinda suck and are devoid of much to do apart from shops and quest givers - compare this to Baldur's Gate where the big cities had tons of quests, sewers, hidden dungeons, wizards towers, slave compounds etc.

The world of TES is so rich and full, but the cities are so empty and lifeless.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I've been playing several open-world games recently, and had some thoughts on the topic I figured I might as well share.

For me, at least, one of the key parts of an open world is making sure that travel, in and of itself, is an enjoyable experience. In a large open world game you are going to spend significant amounts of time moving from A to B. You can, of course, fast travel everywhere, but then you're missing out on sort of the point of an open world in the first place.

That is one of the few areas in which Skyrim fails. It is, in every other respect pretty much, an excellent game, and one that I definitely enjoy. BUT, when it comes to making travel an enjoyable experience, Skyrim falls somewhat flat. Sure, it is a gorgeous set of vistas to move through, and sure, random encounters with crazy monsters and stuff on the roads do serve to break up the monotony, but other than that travel itself becomes somewhat dull. Other open world games have made travel incredibly fun. Some examples: Batman: Arkham City, Just Cause 2, pretty much every Assassin's Creed game. In fact, Just Cause 2 has what I would consider the perfect travel system: A lot of the time a player (maybe it's just me, maybe not) will look at a place across the map that they need to get to, consider using fast travel to get there, and then decide not to do so. That, in my opinion, is an ideal way to set up getting around your open world: have a fast travel system, but make normal travel so fun that player end up not wanting to use your fast travel.

I'm not sure if Batman and Just Cause are fair comparisons. One is an incredibly small, incredibly dense setting (Batman), and the other generates 90% of its excitement with absurd stunt driving/flying that would be bizarrely out of place in Tamriel. AC is rather similar to Batman in a medieval setting, although slightly larger (and more generic as a result).

I would agree, though, that Elder Scrolls is long overdue for an engine upgrade. Perhaps that would help make mundane traveling more of a treat. While I like nosing around in the woods in those games, there's no question the Gamebryo/Creation engine is a little creaky.

 

[SajuukKhar]

I really think the cities in the next TES game should be bigger and more epic - maybe more like Assassins Creed, filled with nameless people and houses and secret passages across and under the streets.

The "cities" in all TES games (apart from Vivec in Morrowind) all kinda suck and are devoid of much to do apart from shops and quest givers - compare this to Baldur's Gate where the big cities had tons of quests, sewers, hidden dungeons, wizards towers, slave compounds etc.

I pray the ES game's cities NEVER turn into anything like that.

Nameless people ruined Fallout 3/New Vegas's cities, seeing 50 "megaton settlers" does make the city feel more active or full, and GTA/Assassin's Creed's "99% of every building is just cardbord cutout that you cant interact with, with people who do nothing but walk around the block and disappear once they are out of your view" never helped those games feel like real cities.

The city you name as he exception, Vivec city, is one of the most hated cities in the series by fans, specifically because its overly bloated, and full of nothing but BS.

 

[SouthernStar]

Your comparing apples and oranges. I love'd the way skyrim did their traveling. Get a quest? Oh okay now you have to walk to this location and on the way you'll find like a 10000 things to explore.

 

[endtherapture]

I really think the cities in the next TES game should be bigger and more epic - maybe more like Assassins Creed, filled with nameless people and houses and secret passages across and under the streets.

The "cities" in all TES games (apart from Vivec in Morrowind) all kinda suck and are devoid of much to do apart from shops and quest givers - compare this to Baldur's Gate where the big cities had tons of quests, sewers, hidden dungeons, wizards towers, slave compounds etc.

I pray the ES game's cities NEVER turn into anything like that.

Nameless people ruined Fallout 3/New Vegas's cities, seeing 50 "megaton settlers" does make the city feel more active or full, and GTA/Assassin's Creed's "99% of every building is just cardbord cutout that you cant interact with, with people who do nothing but walk around the block and disappear once they are out of your view" never helped those games feel like real cities.

The city you name as he exception, Vivec city, is one of the most hated cities in the series by fan, specifically because its so full of nothing but BS.

At least Vivec felt large rather than towns like Whiterun which felt like tiny villages, and the Imperial City which had basically nothing of note in.

At least do quest packed, dungeon packed, Baldur's Gate style cities.

 

[SajuukKhar]

At least Vivec felt large rather than towns like Whiterun which felt like tiny villages, and the Imperial City which had basically nothing of note in.

At least do quest packed, dungeon packed, Baldur's Gate style cities.

vivec had nothing of note in it either........ thats kinda why people hated it so much.

Also, cities in ES games are quest hubs. skyrim's 5 main cities have an average of 20 quests in each of them.

And it simply doesn't make sense for a dungeon to be located under a city, that's idiotic except in the most extreme of circumstances, such as Markarth being built inside the surface area or a larger underground Dwemer ruin. No one is dumb enough to go "lets build a city over a giant ruin full of draugr!". That's almost as bad a RPG cliche as NPcs telling you thier entire life story at the slightest provication, instead of just telling you to go away like Skyrim's NPCs do.

 

[Glongpre]

The city you name as he exception, Vivec city, is one of the most hated cities in the series by fans, specifically because its overly bloated, and full of nothing but BS.

Yea Vivec is awful haha. The horror, the horror...

Oblivions has the overall best cities, they are a good size and aren't too sparse either. Although it is a shame they couldn't make more open cities, without loading I mean.

I don't know what you want done to improve travel in ES OP. Name another medieval fantasy game with better travel, they all are either walk or horseback.

 

[endtherapture]

At least Vivec felt large rather than towns like Whiterun which felt like tiny villages, and the Imperial City which had basically nothing of note in.

At least do quest packed, dungeon packed, Baldur's Gate style cities.

vivec had nothing of note in it either........ thats kinda why people hated it so much.

Also, cities in ES games are quest hubs. skyrim's 5 main cities have an average of 20 quests in each of them.

And it simply doesn't make sense for a dungeon to be located under a city, that's idiotic except in the most extreme of circumstances, such as Markarth being built inside the surface area or a larger underground Dwemer ruin. No one is dumb enough to go "lets build a city over a giant ruin full of draugr!". That's almost as bad a RPG cliche as NPcs telling you thier entire life story at the slightest provication, instead of just telling you to go away like Skyrim's NPCs do.

Well in Baldur's Gate, the cities are build over ancient ruins, or just factions infesting the catacombs under the city. Under Baldur's Gate there's the sewers, not unlike the ratway, and the Undercity which is the ancient ruins of a past city.

Under Athkatla there's a network of crypts, extensive sewer network with Wizards lairs etc. underneath them, and a deep network of catacombs home to a Beholder cult. Also slaver compounds riddle the city, all acting as "dungeons". It all gives the place a bit of character which would be nice in TES. I expected stuff like this under the Imperial City in Oblivion but was utterly disappointed.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

I tend to travel by werewolf which i quite enjoy.

 

[Voulan]

I think Skyrim handled travelling pretty well. On your way to one quest, you could easily stumble across three others and several ruins to come back to. In a world full of crazy magic, there's still going to be a sense of normality. I make it more interesting by travelling with a small army - a follower, an animal follower and two atronachs. We take giants down like nobody's business.

 

[Racecarlock]

, but make normal travel so fun that player end up not wanting to use your fast travel.

But not fast-traveling gave you dragons and random camps to find. I found tons of stuff not fast-traveling places. It would be unrealistic to fill every inch with something to loot and something exciting.

Are you seriously talking about realism in a game where men fight dragons with shouty super powers while also fighting mages and vampires?

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

I tend to travel by werewolf which i quite enjoy.

I swear, werewolf is the absolute best way to travel long distance in Skyrim, and in most other games for that matter. I can only imagine it would be even more fun in a more urban game like Assassin's Creed or GTA. Damn, I've got to find a way to try that now...

But anyway, it's even better in Skyrim if you have the Dawnguard DLC that gives you werewolf perks which can make you really powerful. If you're really interested in putting the fun back into free roaming in Skyrim, become a werewolf (I won't spoil how you do that here) since there's virtually no downside to being one. You can just go into beast form once a day and then pretty much run forever.

 

[josemlopes]

I think the best travel is in the STALKER series, the journey is just as dangerous as the destination and while Skyrim also has a lot of "hey, look, a camp" it felt more like an invitation then a circunstational situation like needing to go to an abandoned building in search of medical supplies midway through the journey.

Maybe it has a bit to do with dificulty or the way dungeons are made in Skyrim (you enter in one place and basicly have to complete the dungeon in one swoop since after you reach the middle going forward is faster then coming back, I doubt people leave in the middle of one while in STALKER leaving a building without having it all explored is a perfectly natural thing since the rest may be to dangerous to explore).

 

[Kajin]

I tend to travel by werewolf which i quite enjoy.

Oh god, what fun that was.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

, but make normal travel so fun that player end up not wanting to use your fast travel.

But not fast-traveling gave you dragons and random camps to find. I found tons of stuff not fast-traveling places. It would be unrealistic to fill every inch with something to loot and something exciting.

Are you seriously talking about realism in a game where men fight dragons with shouty super powers while also fighting mages and vampires?

Having fantastical elements in your game/story/film/whatever does not mean you can be excused making anything and everything nonsensical. The whole dragon thing, battling the Dovahkiin, all that; those things are evocative, exciting, and add to the setting. Making a clusterfuck map does not. It would just make you wonder how anyone who isn't an adventurer could survive or profit.

If we follow your logic to its conclusion, nothing in the game needs to make sense. You could be sent to find this ancient artifact to fight the dragons, and then you find it's a tommy gun. "That makes no sense!" "Ahh, but dragons are impossible, however tommy guns are real and physically possible! Therefore, having accepted dragons through your suspension of disbelief, you must accept this submachine gun."

It's not about what's realistic and what isn't. It's about a sense of logical cohesion, that a world fits together and makes sense, even if it's nothing like our own.

 

[Headsprouter]

It really depends on what I'm doing. If I'm trying to get a quest done, I don't want to walk through too many areas, I want to get from A to B as quick as possible and get the quest done, then I'll go and explore the places I discovered on the way and travel about a bit more until I need to return to the city to sell things...whether or not I want to travel on foot a lot really depends on what I'm doing: Wandering or travelling to a set goal.