Aloy's character developement (which is completed by the end of the Proving btw i.e. before the open-world even really opens up) and discovering a new world could've easily been done in a linear or hub based structure as well. HZD has as much reason to be open-world as W3 does. That reason being to give the player the ability to engage with the gameworld at their own pacing outside of the main plot. HZD's interaction is fighting giant robots at your own pacing, and W3's is getting involved in the day-to-day lives of people living in a harsh, war torn world filled with monsters and curses.
The reason people loved Horizon: Zero Dawn wasn't because of the main plot, it was because of the robot dinosaur battles. And the reason people loved The Witcher 3 wasn't because of the main plot (although it's certainly tons better than HZD's), but because of all the little unique stories you could come across. And the open-world formate facilitates both of these.
Aloy's journey and development just start at The Proving. Yeah, the open world gives the player the ability to engage with the gameworld at their own pace but that is also literally what the player character (Aloy) is doing herself. Whereas Geralt has been-there, done-that already in literally every area in the game, not to mention W3's map is bigger than Horizon as well. If W3's plot was structured akin to say Firefly where Geralt is surviving one job at a time, then sure the open world makes more sense, but that's not W3's narrative, core game, or anything. Many of the game's sidequests feel so beneath Geralt when he has so many bigger picture quests (whether finding Ciri, saving the world, political intrigue, etc.). Much of the exploration is for loot and leveling up purposes but Geralt is a master witcher (fully skilled) and should have access to best gear anyway (or how'd he make it this far?). The open world just doesn't mesh with much of anything in W3. Hell, the core of W3 wouldn't lose much if the game was basically a Telltale game and just gave you the story without any of the unneeded faffing about.
trunkage said:
Have you replayed Baulders Gate recently. Skyrim has far more character development. "I got attacked. Better go to Baulders Gate. Wait, he's bhaalspawn too. Kill. Game over' There's two complications. Pay the gate keeper. Using a faction to get close to Saverok.
How much character development was in Fallout 1? I'm irradiated now and can't go home? They give you a more developed backstory between games than they do during the game. At least Skyrim has the need to prove your worth, actually do some training, being a leader during politcal negotiations based on your actions, take out dragon, lead an invasion force. (Please note, I find a lot of Skyrim boring, especially the main quest. This is meant to indicate how piss poor old games were.)
Replayed Morrowind lately? There are a series of quests that I find worse than Fetch quest. Talk quest. Yes, that's right, just talk. You dont even need to convince them. I guess the fun bit was the journey.
Also, why did Geralt need to find out half the clues he got? Most tell a story but doesn't give any insight on where she is. I.e. its chaff
I haven't played many older RPGs but I bet Baldur's Gate and Fallout 1 are shorter than the vast majority of RPGs today. RPGs have far too much fluff and bad content. Maybe they always have, but that's not a valid excuse for today's games doing the same thing. It's like when people say an RPG's combat is 'good for an RPG', that just tells me the combat ain't good so why should I play it when I'll probably spend more time killing shit in said RPG than an action game with top-notch combat. Why don't I just play games with good combat for my combat fix and then watch a Youtube "movie" of said RPG to get the story and the actual good part of the game? I don't see the point in playing content that isn't good for whatever reasons, why make it part of your game if it's not quality content? The story bits of W3 are good but that's really the only good parts of the game, the rest is just bad content.
Aloy's journey and development just start at The Proving. Yeah, the open world gives the player the ability to engage with the gameworld at their own pace but that is also literally what the player character (Aloy) is doing herself. Whereas Geralt has been-there, done-that already in literally every area in the game, not to mention W3's map is bigger than Horizon as well. If W3's plot was structured akin to say Firefly where Geralt is surviving one job at a time, then sure the open world makes more sense, but that's not W3's narrative, core game, or anything. Many of the game's sidequests feel so beneath Geralt when he has so many bigger picture quests (whether finding Ciri, saving the world, political intrigue, etc.). Much of the exploration is for loot and leveling up purposes but Geralt is a master witcher (fully skilled) and should have access to best gear anyway (or how'd he make it this far?). The open world just doesn't mesh with much of anything in W3. Hell, the core of W3 wouldn't lose much if the game was basically a Telltale game and just gave you the story without any of the unneeded faffing about.
Her journey starts, her character arc and developement ends. Aloy's desire is to be respected, to not be treated like she's an outcast. By the end of the Proving this happens; she's given a significant rank, and her survival and ability to ride machines is respected by pretty much all. Aloy just becomes Commander Shepard, but without the player ability to choose her words. It's one of the worst aspects of the game, and makes Aloy 'super badass stranger who'll get the job done'. Even when you meet the sun king he's all in awe of Aloy's awesomeness. There's no change in her character from the end of the Proving to the end of the game.
Aloy equally has side quests that should feel beneath her considering she's tracking the man who killed, essentially, her father as well as other members of the tribe. But no, let's go do a hunting challenge. And why isn't Aloy also given better gear? She's a Seeker, which is considered a particularly important rank, and her mission is to bring the men who have desecrated a sacred right of passage and killed many braves to justice. But no, you go get your own weapons and supplies.
What does you screwing around fighting robot dinosaurs have to do with or add to the main plot of HZD? Nothing, right? And yet it's the part of the game that gives the most joy to the people who play it. Same with W3. People who played (and liked) that game enjoy the little stories and occurances that happen by taking quests, contracts, or just talking to people. The core wouldn't lose much if it was a Telltale game, except for the lore and personal stories that give the world so much life, the world the core takes place in. HZD also has enough robot fighting in the main plot quests. Does that mean you going off the main plot to go kill some robots for a while is also unneeded faffing about? And if so, so what if you're having fun with it?
I want to go explore. Witcher doesn't give me much to explore just by looking at the horizon. Even some mountain ranges would be nice.
I came from a farm too. 1.5 mile x 3 mile. 1 lot of scraggly trees in the whole area, where we leave dead cattle if we didn't get the chance to slaughter them beforehand. We had dirt roads too. Had to go on a school bus via them for 10 year. Witcher doesn't look much like what I remember, even though I had that experience. But that's not what's important. I remember seeing mountain in the distance and finally being able to go there one day. Disused railway lines, Silos, dams, old shacks. All with possibly interesting tales.... And the Witcher usually just has heaps of empty space. The Witcher is unrealistic based on how sparse the world is. Which flies in the face of Novigrad, which is well incredibly realised and feel realistic. It feels alive. It feels full to the brim. But the countryside and pretty empty.
Edit: I forgot to add that 'farms' in video games make me want to say, 'You thinks that's a farm? That's cute. Looks more like a garden.' Hence me pointing out the dimensions of the farm
That's probably due to a difference in geography. I live in what is likely the flattest country in Europe -- not a mountain in the whole damn place. At best we have a few relatively tall hills, but that's it. And then there's also the fact that farmlands today won't look exactly the same or have the same size as those in medieval times.
I guess my point is that the land in W3 doesn't feel like Adventure Land, but just regular farmland (White Orchard and Velen/Novigrad anyway) where people work and go about their daily lives. Which works perfectly for a game where the exploration consists mainly of meeting people, talking to them, and getting involved in their goings-on.
TW2 worked better with a controller than with a keyboard and mouse, despite being designed primarily for the PC. That's how absolutely clunky it was. Movement during combat was designed more for analogue sticks than WASD. On the other hand, The Witcher 3 was not only more responsive than TW2, but the entire interface was designed for any input device that you prefer and it had dedicated buttons for controls that are not very comfortable to use with a controller. It plays and controls like a PC game is supposed to.
This is something that you would know if you'd played the games.
I beg to differ. I?ve never understood people?s complaints about TW3?s movement and combat mechanics. Especially with M/KB there are enough options to get Geralt and Roach to be very input-complicit. His animations are also some of the best of any game, open world or otherwise. I could see if you?re trying to get him to jump on a fence that might be difficult, but the only times I?ve had issues with controls is when I accidentally hit a wrong key. The sticky targeting sensitivity in combat can be touchy in close quarters but the mobility is so good that it?s usually a non issue.
Really, Geralt has never been more nimble or well-animated, so these ?controls suck? or ?too clumsy? comments are perplexing to me. He actually has a great balance between feeling weighted and grounded while still retaining playability.
Also, RPGs are in a pretty bad place now as they're the games with the most amount of content but the lowest % of engaging content (generally), that's a pretty piss-poor combination.
---
How many open worlds games actually mesh with the character development/narrative/themes of the game? Not very many, it's just a go-to design choice, just a checkbox to check because it sells basically. Very few games merit their open world at all. Witcher 3 didn't, it could've easily been far more linear experience as that was literally the narrative (going from Ciri clue to Ciri clue basically). Whereas a game like Horizon not only needed the open world for its core gameplay but the narrative and character development was about Aloy discovering a "new" world. Whereas Geralt already knew his world and the narrative is literally just following breadcrumbs. Plus, Horizon's open world contains at least a couple hundred less points of interest than Witcher 3, less is usually more with regards to game design. Design by subtraction, not addition.
That?s one way of looking at it, but another is there is a broad spectrum of what could qualify as ?engaging content?. There aren?t many games that match The Witcher 3?s sense of exploration for example. And when it comes down to it in terms of gameplay, there are only so many ways to press a button.
I haven't played many older RPGs but I bet Baldur's Gate and Fallout 1 are shorter than the vast majority of RPGs today. RPGs have far too much fluff and bad content. Maybe they always have, but that's not a valid excuse for today's games doing the same thing. It's like when people say an RPG's combat is 'good for an RPG', that just tells me the combat ain't good so why should I play it when I'll probably spend more time killing shit in said RPG than an action game with top-notch combat. Why don't I just play games with good combat for my combat fix and then watch a Youtube "movie" of said RPG to get the story and the actual good part of the game? I don't see the point in playing content that isn't good for whatever reasons, why make it part of your game if it's not quality content? The story bits of W3 are good but that's really the only good parts of the game, the rest is just bad content.
Oh Baldurs Gate (the first one) is kind of the king of fluff. The fellow you were quoting kind of summed it up even. Most of the game is "Go to dungeon, kill dude, read next dudes name on the scrap of paper, go to that dungeon, kill that dude". Said dudes just being kind of a background smorgasbord of generic Forgotten Realms villainy. While BG's open world (map tile based though it may have been) wasn't exactly rolling in meaningful content either with lots of open space and generic encounters surrounding the few dots of content.
The general strength of the game was really more in the dynamics between the party members. And even that was largely relegated to the designated cast, if you went off script and put together some of the other 20 odd choices, it wasn't nearly as fleshed out.
BG2 largely took the experience and trimmed it up, ditching the more open world aspects and probably being a much shorter game as a result (enormous filler Underdark midchapter aside).
The length of any openworld dealy, new or old tends to be fairly subjective though. You could beat Morrowind in less then an hour if you really wanted. Skyrim clocks in under 4 to do the main quest IIRC. The main ones that tend to actually chew up time forcibly are either the (usually JRPG styled) grindfests where you spend eons becoming powerful enough to do the next mission, or your classical Zelda setup (or Metroidvania, same general idea) where you have to do all the content to get the upgrades to traverse the map.
I would say most of them. Very few games are actually enhanced by being open worlds, and most end up suffering, particularly narratively, as a result. Even Witcher 3, which is often touted as one of the pinnacles of the open world, would have IMO been just as good if not better as a hub based linear game.
Her journey starts, her character arc and developement ends. Aloy's desire is to be respected, to not be treated like she's an outcast. By the end of the Proving this happens; she's given a significant rank, and her survival and ability to ride machines is respected by pretty much all. Aloy just becomes Commander Shepard, but without the player ability to choose her words. It's one of the worst aspects of the game, and makes Aloy 'super badass stranger who'll get the job done'. Even when you meet the sun king he's all in awe of Aloy's awesomeness. There's no change in her character from the end of the Proving to the end of the game.
Aloy equally has side quests that should feel beneath her considering she's tracking the man who killed, essentially, her father as well as other members of the tribe. But no, let's go do a hunting challenge. And why isn't Aloy also given better gear? She's a Seeker, which is considered a particularly important rank, and her mission is to bring the men who have desecrated a sacred right of passage and killed many braves to justice. But no, you go get your own weapons and supplies.
What does you screwing around fighting robot dinosaurs have to do with or add to the main plot of HZD? Nothing, right? And yet it's the part of the game that gives the most joy to the people who play it. Same with W3. People who played (and liked) that game enjoy the little stories and occurances that happen by taking quests, contracts, or just talking to people. The core wouldn't lose much if it was a Telltale game, except for the lore and personal stories that give the world so much life, the world the core takes place in. HZD also has enough robot fighting in the main plot quests. Does that mean you going off the main plot to go kill some robots for a while is also unneeded faffing about? And if so, so what if you're having fun with it?
Aloy finds out literally who she is after the Proving. To say her character development ends there is quite the exaggeration. Her Seeker title is only as good as how much the other tribes respect the Nora, it's hardly Spectre status. If I recall correctly, the Sun King is in awe of her because of what she did.
She does have very little to go on with regards to finding who killed her father. She also has to learn the world outside of the Nora lands to properly succeed on her journey whereas Geralt completely does not. There's less than 50 total quests in the game, there's little fluff in the game overall. And the really low-level quests are even called Errands so you know that's completely optional in every regard. Why would Aloy get better gear from the Nora, they don't really hunt the bigger, more dangerous machines. Why can't master witcher Geralt hold a level 2 sword at the start of W3? That makes far less sense. Plus, Horizon isn't really a gear oriented game, I was using greens and blues at endgame.
Fighting robots enables Aloy to discover her world and find out the truth about everything. What the robots are there for and what their doing is kinda integral to the world. More integral than fighting monsters in W3 that the humans have gotten pretty decent at fighting already and live on the outskirts of civilization anyway. You do have to "go out into the world" in Horizon to go to and do your main quests, you'll fight robots even if your straight lining it to where you think you supposed to go (as the map is cloudy until you actually discover it). Just like any game you can faff about if you want. There's some really solid sidequests in W3 but most are just follow blood/smells/footprints with your witcher senses and fight something. The main quests and a good handful of solid sidequests are really all any RPG needs, no need to have water-downed quests just because you wanna put 100+ quests, 100+ hours of content on the back of the box. W3 has probably as many, if not more, points of interest as a Ubisoft game and you just can't make that much content while keeping it good and non-repetitive no matter who you are (monster nests...). Creating 10 hours of great content itself is damn difficult.
hanselthecaretaker said:
I?ve never understood people?s complaints about TW3?s movement and combat mechanics.
CDPR literally patched in "alternate" controls to make Geralt control better (still average at best even then) so they must've felt the controls needed work too. And, yes, Geralt controls horribly.
hanselthecaretaker said:
That?s one way of looking at it, but another is there is a broad spectrum of what could qualify as ?engaging content?. There aren?t many games that match The Witcher 3?s sense of exploration for example. And when it comes down to it in terms of gameplay, there are only so many ways to press a button.
It's all opinions of course. However, it just ain't easy to make engaging content whether we are talking games or anything else. Making all the content of these 50-100+ long games good is nearly impossible. Just look at how long you fight shit in RPGs and most RPGs have rather shit combat. Why am I spending more time fighting shit in an RPG than I am in a Platinum game? Make the RPG about ROLE-PLAYING, its freaking genre, not combat. Combat is just easier to do for developers than well-done role-playing so that's why it's there much like how indie games tend to be 1st-person if they're 3D because it's just plain easier than a 3rd-person camera. I honestly didn't find much of anything interesting to explore in W3 that wasn't part of the main questline or substantial sidequests. There's always a something new or better that can be done with pressing buttons, that's why we play new games to find that next special one. There's only so many ways to strum six strings on a guitar but there's still loads of great music to be made on the guitar.
Seth Carter said:
The length of any openworld dealy, new or old tends to be fairly subjective though. You could beat Morrowind in less then an hour if you really wanted. Skyrim clocks in under 4 to do the main quest IIRC. The main ones that tend to actually chew up time forcibly are either the (usually JRPG styled) grindfests where you spend eons becoming powerful enough to do the next mission, or your classical Zelda setup (or Metroidvania, same general idea) where you have to do all the content to get the upgrades to traverse the map.
People aren't buying and playing these games to get a 4-hour playthrough out of them. I remember everyone turning their noses at Vanquish's 5-hour campaign, but it was some the best hours of gameplay you could find. I feel the sweet spot for an RPG is 20-40 hours with keeping the content high in quality throughout.
People aren't buying and playing these games to get a 4-hour playthrough out of them. I remember everyone turning their noses at Vanquish's 5-hour campaign, but it was some the best hours of gameplay you could find. I feel the sweet spot for an RPG is 20-40 hours with keeping the content high in quality throughout.
I don't think I've ever played a game that had more than 30 hours of content where I didn't feel that there was fat to be trimmed. As engaged as I may be in the story of some 100 hour games, that story can usually easily be condensed down into a more digestible time frame.
If a story is really good, I'll play it multiple times. If a game feels like it's wasting my time I probably won't even finish it once. I might play a 20 hour game 3 or 4 times, but never finish a 50 hour game which has a lot more content because more of that content is not engaging.
Aloy finds out literally who she is after the Proving. To say her character development ends there is quite the exaggeration. Her Seeker title is only as good as how much the other tribes respect the Nora, it's hardly Spectre status. If I recall correctly, the Sun King is in awe of her because of what she did.
She finds out who she is, or at least WE find out who she is right after the Proving, and then nothing for like 80% of the game until the end, where we discover the purpose of who she is. Geralt also doesn't have much of a character arc in W3, but there it's more about the people you interact with and their stories rather then his. HZD really can't fall back on that at all, so what you're left with is a pretty dull protagonist.
And all Aloy ever wanted was respect from the Nora, as she's not even aware of the existence of other tribes initially. And it's not just the Sun King, it's nearly everyone you meet. Aloy gets some shit from other people before the Proving, though even that is pretty minimal, but after that everyone treats her like she's the coolest kid on the block.
She does have very little to go on with regards to finding who killed her father. She also has to learn the world outside of the Nora lands to properly succeed on her journey whereas Geralt completely does not. There's less than 50 total quests in the game, there's little fluff in the game overall. And the really low-level quests are even called Errands so you know that's completely optional in every regard. Why would Aloy get better gear from the Nora, they don't really hunt the bigger, more dangerous machines. Why can't master witcher Geralt hold a level 2 sword at the start of W3? That makes far less sense. Plus, Horizon isn't really a gear oriented game, I was using greens and blues at endgame.
She has very little to go on, except for the quest markers that she only needs to follow. She also doesn't need to learn anything more than what the main questline already teaches her. Anything that isn't the main questline is there not for Aloy to learn more about the world or herself, but for the player to have fun while maybe discovering a bit more about the lore. It doesn't have something like, say, God of War '18 where the extra missions actually show little character moments.
And the Nora obviously have a hierarchy, which means some are treated better than others, which suggests people higher up would be given better gear. And this better gear is even available for purchase at local vendors, it's not like the weapons you start out with are the highest tier stuff the Nora have. And yeah, Geralt not being able to hold a sword because he's underleveled is stupid. It's an annoying level blocker that some RPGs still use and it needs to die, or atleast get some proper reasoning behind it.
Have you replayed Baulders Gate recently. Skyrim has far more character development. "I got attacked. Better go to Baulders Gate. Wait, he's bhaalspawn too. Kill. Game over' There's two complications. Pay the gate keeper. Using a faction to get close to Saverok.
How much character development was in Fallout 1? I'm irradiated now and can't go home? They give you a more developed backstory between games than they do during the game. At least Skyrim has the need to prove your worth, actually do some training, being a leader during politcal negotiations based on your actions, take out dragon, lead an invasion force. (Please note, I find a lot of Skyrim boring, especially the main quest. This is meant to indicate how piss poor old games were.)
Replayed Morrowind lately? There are a series of quests that I find worse than Fetch quest. Talk quest. Yes, that's right, just talk. You dont even need to convince them. I guess the fun bit was the journey.
Also, why did Geralt need to find out half the clues he got? Most tell a story but doesn't give any insight on where she is. I.e. its chaff
I haven't played many older RPGs but I bet Baldur's Gate and Fallout 1 are shorter than the vast majority of RPGs today. RPGs have far too much fluff and bad content. Maybe they always have, but that's not a valid excuse for today's games doing the same thing. It's like when people say an RPG's combat is 'good for an RPG', that just tells me the combat ain't good so why should I play it when I'll probably spend more time killing shit in said RPG than an action game with top-notch combat. Why don't I just play games with good combat for my combat fix and then watch a Youtube "movie" of said RPG to get the story and the actual good part of the game? I don't see the point in playing content that isn't good for whatever reasons, why make it part of your game if it's not quality content? The story bits of W3 are good but that's really the only good parts of the game, the rest is just bad content.
I would say that the older and newer games have the same percentage of fluff. But, if its longer, you're going to get tired of the game and fluff would be more aggravating. Or at least that's my theory. My other theory is based on the newness of the quest to you. My assistant thought the quests in Fallout 4 were fantastic but she was only 19 at that time and never played RPG. Me, playing Fallout from the start, was not so enamored.
But, as you say, they should be improving. Fallout 1 and Baulders Gate are not complicated. There's the set up, one twist and finished. Fallout 3 Dragon Age Orgins had lots of twist and turns. Whether they are better quality stories is up to you. I find that it rollercoasters. Some parts are better and some worse.
The length of any openworld dealy, new or old tends to be fairly subjective though. You could beat Morrowind in less then an hour if you really wanted. Skyrim clocks in under 4 to do the main quest IIRC. The main ones that tend to actually chew up time forcibly are either the (usually JRPG styled) grindfests where you spend eons becoming powerful enough to do the next mission, or your classical Zelda setup (or Metroidvania, same general idea) where you have to do all the content to get the upgrades to traverse the map.
People aren't buying and playing these games to get a 4-hour playthrough out of them. I remember everyone turning their noses at Vanquish's 5-hour campaign, but it was some the best hours of gameplay you could find. I feel the sweet spot for an RPG is 20-40 hours with keeping the content high in quality throughout.
Well true enough. Most folks aren't gonna buy Skyrim and simply do the main quest (which is I think 9 quests? its been a long time)
There is definitely a wide gulf between the often 10-12 hours of unique well-developed content, and the 60-70 hours of procedurally generated and/or repetitive padding in most open world Adventures or RPGs. Skyrim has maybe 3 particularly developed questlines (Main, DB, Thieves), a couple leaning heavy on the radiant filler (Companions, Mage Guild), and the woefully unfinished Civil War quests. And you could probably bang all those in under 20 hours. Although in Skyrim (and Oblivion) I found the dissonance of the "Does Everything" character kind of detrimental, and restarting fresh runs is tedious and stops you ever getting fully levelled out in mechanics without the equally awful meta-grinding of skills.
Baldurs Gate 1 is just kind of oddball. It largely smacks of a conflicting design. Most of the first half/two thirds of the main quest is essentially just a looping grind to get you up to level 8 or so so you can go deal with the real quest. If they weren't stuck with making you level 1, you could go to Nashkel, and immediately go to Baldurs Gate without the other 2 or 3 side trips and minibosses in between.
The more faulty game design tends to be anchored around two factrors.
One is the concept of a single character does everything in the open world. Definitely this has been a design intent in Elder Scrolls. You literally can't master a skill in any vaguely organic fashion if you just pursue the directly in character options in them. The game is clearly built around a character interacting with most or all of the content on a purely mechanical level. Similarly in Fallout 4 (and 76), have their whole "Here's a tour of every single faction embedded in the main quest, even if its utterly nonsensical that you'd work for all of them".
The other side would be the linear narrative dropped into the open world structure. Whether its the Dragonborn, whichever Assassin, Aloy, Mad Max, Captain McAndromeda, or what have you. The main quest is always the same beats in the same places. That basically destroys the concept of replays where you do different paths through the world and engage with the side content, because every time you do you have to wade through that same identical slog again. Which then gives you a giant demoralizing 60 hour chore list rather then a set of diverse 10-15 hour play throughs, or you have to include 4-6 hours of rerun on every go through.
Her journey starts, her character arc and developement ends. Aloy's desire is to be respected, to not be treated like she's an outcast. By the end of the Proving this happens; she's given a significant rank, and her survival and ability to ride machines is respected by pretty much all. Aloy just becomes Commander Shepard, but without the player ability to choose her words. It's one of the worst aspects of the game, and makes Aloy 'super badass stranger who'll get the job done'. Even when you meet the sun king he's all in awe of Aloy's awesomeness. There's no change in her character from the end of the Proving to the end of the game.
Aloy equally has side quests that should feel beneath her considering she's tracking the man who killed, essentially, her father as well as other members of the tribe. But no, let's go do a hunting challenge. And why isn't Aloy also given better gear? She's a Seeker, which is considered a particularly important rank, and her mission is to bring the men who have desecrated a sacred right of passage and killed many braves to justice. But no, you go get your own weapons and supplies.
What does you screwing around fighting robot dinosaurs have to do with or add to the main plot of HZD? Nothing, right? And yet it's the part of the game that gives the most joy to the people who play it. Same with W3. People who played (and liked) that game enjoy the little stories and occurances that happen by taking quests, contracts, or just talking to people. The core wouldn't lose much if it was a Telltale game, except for the lore and personal stories that give the world so much life, the world the core takes place in. HZD also has enough robot fighting in the main plot quests. Does that mean you going off the main plot to go kill some robots for a while is also unneeded faffing about? And if so, so what if you're having fun with it?
Aloy finds out literally who she is after the Proving. To say her character development ends there is quite the exaggeration. Her Seeker title is only as good as how much the other tribes respect the Nora, it's hardly Spectre status. If I recall correctly, the Sun King is in awe of her because of what she did.
She does have very little to go on with regards to finding who killed her father. She also has to learn the world outside of the Nora lands to properly succeed on her journey whereas Geralt completely does not. There's less than 50 total quests in the game, there's little fluff in the game overall. And the really low-level quests are even called Errands so you know that's completely optional in every regard. Why would Aloy get better gear from the Nora, they don't really hunt the bigger, more dangerous machines. Why can't master witcher Geralt hold a level 2 sword at the start of W3? That makes far less sense. Plus, Horizon isn't really a gear oriented game, I was using greens and blues at endgame.
Fighting robots enables Aloy to discover her world and find out the truth about everything. What the robots are there for and what their doing is kinda integral to the world. More integral than fighting monsters in W3 that the humans have gotten pretty decent at fighting already and live on the outskirts of civilization anyway. You do have to "go out into the world" in Horizon to go to and do your main quests, you'll fight robots even if your straight lining it to where you think you supposed to go (as the map is cloudy until you actually discover it). Just like any game you can faff about if you want. There's some really solid sidequests in W3 but most are just follow blood/smells/footprints with your witcher senses and fight something. The main quests and a good handful of solid sidequests are really all any RPG needs, no need to have water-downed quests just because you wanna put 100+ quests, 100+ hours of content on the back of the box. W3 has probably as many, if not more, points of interest as a Ubisoft game and you just can't make that much content while keeping it good and non-repetitive no matter who you are (monster nests...). Creating 10 hours of great content itself is damn difficult.
hanselthecaretaker said:
I?ve never understood people?s complaints about TW3?s movement and combat mechanics.
CDPR literally patched in "alternate" controls to make Geralt control better (still average at best even then) so they must've felt the controls needed work too. And, yes, Geralt controls horribly.
hanselthecaretaker said:
That?s one way of looking at it, but another is there is a broad spectrum of what could qualify as ?engaging content?. There aren?t many games that match The Witcher 3?s sense of exploration for example. And when it comes down to it in terms of gameplay, there are only so many ways to press a button.
It's all opinions of course. However, it just ain't easy to make engaging content whether we are talking games or anything else. Making all the content of these 50-100+ long games good is nearly impossible. Just look at how long you fight shit in RPGs and most RPGs have rather shit combat. Why am I spending more time fighting shit in an RPG than I am in a Platinum game? Make the RPG about ROLE-PLAYING, its freaking genre, not combat. Combat is just easier to do for developers than well-done role-playing so that's why it's there much like how indie games tend to be 1st-person if they're 3D because it's just plain easier than a 3rd-person camera. I honestly didn't find much of anything interesting to explore in W3 that wasn't part of the main questline or substantial sidequests. There's always a something new or better that can be done with pressing buttons, that's why we play new games to find that next special one. There's only so many ways to strum six strings on a guitar but there's still loads of great music to be made on the guitar.
Seth Carter said:
The length of any openworld dealy, new or old tends to be fairly subjective though. You could beat Morrowind in less then an hour if you really wanted. Skyrim clocks in under 4 to do the main quest IIRC. The main ones that tend to actually chew up time forcibly are either the (usually JRPG styled) grindfests where you spend eons becoming powerful enough to do the next mission, or your classical Zelda setup (or Metroidvania, same general idea) where you have to do all the content to get the upgrades to traverse the map.
People aren't buying and playing these games to get a 4-hour playthrough out of them. I remember everyone turning their noses at Vanquish's 5-hour campaign, but it was some the best hours of gameplay you could find. I feel the sweet spot for an RPG is 20-40 hours with keeping the content high in quality throughout
I?ve only played Witcher on PC so have no experience with gamepad controls, but have never had a problem with KB/M in the series. Sure, it can feel different coming from another game like anything, but it?s only been a matter of adjustment and hasn?t hampered playability for me personally. In fact I really echo this guy?s thoughts [https://www.gamesradar.com/witcher-3s-combat-isnt-flawed-its-just-more-real-you-expected/] about TW3 striking a good balance in the way it depicts swordplay.
I like the guitar analogy you used and agree there is much room for improvement like the guy in that article said, but still think in terms of games that are currently out that only so much can be considered ?fresh? gameplay design. Even a game like Bayonetta where you have so many ways to extend a combo, the law of diminishing returns applies heavily, at least to me. I haven?t played the game in a couple months, because I realize there really isn?t much else to it outside of that. Engaging content is ultimately in the eye of the beholder.
Her journey starts, her character arc and developement ends. Aloy's desire is to be respected, to not be treated like she's an outcast. By the end of the Proving this happens; she's given a significant rank, and her survival and ability to ride machines is respected by pretty much all. Aloy just becomes Commander Shepard, but without the player ability to choose her words. It's one of the worst aspects of the game, and makes Aloy 'super badass stranger who'll get the job done'. Even when you meet the sun king he's all in awe of Aloy's awesomeness. There's no change in her character from the end of the Proving to the end of the game.
Aloy equally has side quests that should feel beneath her considering she's tracking the man who killed, essentially, her father as well as other members of the tribe. But no, let's go do a hunting challenge. And why isn't Aloy also given better gear? She's a Seeker, which is considered a particularly important rank, and her mission is to bring the men who have desecrated a sacred right of passage and killed many braves to justice. But no, you go get your own weapons and supplies.
What does you screwing around fighting robot dinosaurs have to do with or add to the main plot of HZD? Nothing, right? And yet it's the part of the game that gives the most joy to the people who play it. Same with W3. People who played (and liked) that game enjoy the little stories and occurances that happen by taking quests, contracts, or just talking to people. The core wouldn't lose much if it was a Telltale game, except for the lore and personal stories that give the world so much life, the world the core takes place in. HZD also has enough robot fighting in the main plot quests. Does that mean you going off the main plot to go kill some robots for a while is also unneeded faffing about? And if so, so what if you're having fun with it?
Aloy finds out literally who she is after the Proving. To say her character development ends there is quite the exaggeration. Her Seeker title is only as good as how much the other tribes respect the Nora, it's hardly Spectre status. If I recall correctly, the Sun King is in awe of her because of what she did.
She does have very little to go on with regards to finding who killed her father. She also has to learn the world outside of the Nora lands to properly succeed on her journey whereas Geralt completely does not. There's less than 50 total quests in the game, there's little fluff in the game overall. And the really low-level quests are even called Errands so you know that's completely optional in every regard. Why would Aloy get better gear from the Nora, they don't really hunt the bigger, more dangerous machines. Why can't master witcher Geralt hold a level 2 sword at the start of W3? That makes far less sense. Plus, Horizon isn't really a gear oriented game, I was using greens and blues at endgame.
Fighting robots enables Aloy to discover her world and find out the truth about everything. What the robots are there for and what their doing is kinda integral to the world. More integral than fighting monsters in W3 that the humans have gotten pretty decent at fighting already and live on the outskirts of civilization anyway. You do have to "go out into the world" in Horizon to go to and do your main quests, you'll fight robots even if your straight lining it to where you think you supposed to go (as the map is cloudy until you actually discover it). Just like any game you can faff about if you want. There's some really solid sidequests in W3 but most are just follow blood/smells/footprints with your witcher senses and fight something. The main quests and a good handful of solid sidequests are really all any RPG needs, no need to have water-downed quests just because you wanna put 100+ quests, 100+ hours of content on the back of the box. W3 has probably as many, if not more, points of interest as a Ubisoft game and you just can't make that much content while keeping it good and non-repetitive no matter who you are (monster nests...). Creating 10 hours of great content itself is damn difficult.
hanselthecaretaker said:
I?ve never understood people?s complaints about TW3?s movement and combat mechanics.
CDPR literally patched in "alternate" controls to make Geralt control better (still average at best even then) so they must've felt the controls needed work too. And, yes, Geralt controls horribly.
hanselthecaretaker said:
That?s one way of looking at it, but another is there is a broad spectrum of what could qualify as ?engaging content?. There aren?t many games that match The Witcher 3?s sense of exploration for example. And when it comes down to it in terms of gameplay, there are only so many ways to press a button.
It's all opinions of course. However, it just ain't easy to make engaging content whether we are talking games or anything else. Making all the content of these 50-100+ long games good is nearly impossible. Just look at how long you fight shit in RPGs and most RPGs have rather shit combat. Why am I spending more time fighting shit in an RPG than I am in a Platinum game? Make the RPG about ROLE-PLAYING, its freaking genre, not combat. Combat is just easier to do for developers than well-done role-playing so that's why it's there much like how indie games tend to be 1st-person if they're 3D because it's just plain easier than a 3rd-person camera. I honestly didn't find much of anything interesting to explore in W3 that wasn't part of the main questline or substantial sidequests. There's always a something new or better that can be done with pressing buttons, that's why we play new games to find that next special one. There's only so many ways to strum six strings on a guitar but there's still loads of great music to be made on the guitar.
Seth Carter said:
The length of any openworld dealy, new or old tends to be fairly subjective though. You could beat Morrowind in less then an hour if you really wanted. Skyrim clocks in under 4 to do the main quest IIRC. The main ones that tend to actually chew up time forcibly are either the (usually JRPG styled) grindfests where you spend eons becoming powerful enough to do the next mission, or your classical Zelda setup (or Metroidvania, same general idea) where you have to do all the content to get the upgrades to traverse the map.
People aren't buying and playing these games to get a 4-hour playthrough out of them. I remember everyone turning their noses at Vanquish's 5-hour campaign, but it was some the best hours of gameplay you could find. I feel the sweet spot for an RPG is 20-40 hours with keeping the content high in quality throughout
I?ve only played Witcher on PC so have no experience with gamepad controls, but have never had a problem with KB/M in the series. Sure, it can feel different coming from another game like anything, but it?s only been a matter of adjustment and hasn?t hampered playability for me personally. In fact I really echos this guy?s thoughts [https://www.gamesradar.com/witcher-3s-combat-isnt-flawed-its-just-more-real-you-expected/] about the TW3 striking a good balance in the way it depicts swordplay.
I like the guitar analogy you used and agree there is much room for improvement like the guy in that article said, but still think in terms of games that are currently out that only so much can be considered ?fresh? gameplay design. Even a game like Bayonetta where you have so many ways to extend a combo, the law of diminishing returns applies heavily, at least to me. I haven?t played the game in a couple months, because I realize there really isn?t much else to it outside of that. Engaging content is ultimately in the eye of the beholder.
Arkham Asylum is the best of the series for me because it wasn't open world. There was plenty of stuff to explore and find but it never felt as if the main story was falling into the background.
In City I felt that I was getting dragged off course all the time. By random cries for help or Mr. Zsasz missions. It's rare that I'll criticise games for giving me too much content but Arkham City handled it in the wrong way for me, I actually found myself becoming annoyed by the distractions.
As to the Witcher 3 I enjoy it when I play it but find it hard to want to pick it up again once I stop, as Geralt is one of the most dull protagonists I've ever encountered. This isn't a Witcher 3 problem for me though, I've felt it across every entry in the series.
The only open world games I can say I've genuinely enjoyed and wanted to just get lost in are Fallout 4 and Assassin's Creed Odyssey.
The 50+ hours games I do finish, I never want to go back and play them again.
Casual Shinji said:
She finds out who she is, or at least WE find out who she is right after the Proving, and then nothing for like 80% of the game until the end, where we discover the purpose of who she is. Geralt also doesn't have much of a character arc in W3, but there it's more about the people you interact with and their stories rather then his. HZD really can't fall back on that at all, so what you're left with is a pretty dull protagonist.
And all Aloy ever wanted was respect from the Nora, as she's not even aware of the existence of other tribes initially. And it's not just the Sun King, it's nearly everyone you meet. Aloy gets some shit from other people before the Proving, though even that is pretty minimal, but after that everyone treats her like she's the coolest kid on the block.
She has very little to go on, except for the quest markers that she only needs to follow. She also doesn't need to learn anything more than what the main questline already teaches her. Anything that isn't the main questline is there not for Aloy to learn more about the world or herself, but for the player to have fun while maybe discovering a bit more about the lore. It doesn't have something like, say, God of War '18 where the extra missions actually show little character moments.
And the Nora obviously have a hierarchy, which means some are treated better than others, which suggests people higher up would be given better gear. And this better gear is even available for purchase at local vendors, it's not like the weapons you start out with are the highest tier stuff the Nora have. And yeah, Geralt not being able to hold a sword because he's underleveled is stupid. It's an annoying level blocker that some RPGs still use and it needs to die, or atleast get some proper reasoning behind it.
I like Aloy far more as a protagonist than Geralt, who I found to be rather dull, it was the characters around him that made everything interesting. Geralt was kinda like the straight-man in a comedy, you need him there for the other characters to work but he's nobody's favorite character. It's been awhile since I played Horizon, I feel like everyone respected/liked Aloy for something she did vs just liking her because she's the protagonist/seeker, it didn't feel artificial. I'm not trying to say Horizon is some perfect example or writing or anything but I feel like it did just enough (and possibly a bit more) for all the character and story beats to work and feel satisfying, basically about 7/10 in the writing department, with W3 being an 8/10 for me (I didn't care for the main storyline that much honestly).
Again, it's been awhile but some of the sidequests had to have had some lore building. The vantage points themselves were all lore along with the cauldrons (especially the 1st one you find is quite awesome in opening up the lore of the world). Also, you can turn off the quest markers in Horizon, which was one of the things I did immediately. And the exploration is immensely better for it as you can literally find your destination by NPC descriptions, which most games really don't allow for as NPCs will just tell you to go such-and-such place without any descriptors so you kinda need the markers on (due to quest/mission markers being so prevalent and "standard").
Again, I don't really think the Nora fought the tougher machines so it makes for them to not have the best gear and they weren't the most technologically advanced tribe either. I also think you're given a blue bow before even the Proving. I'm sure it's not handled perfectly but at the same time, I never felt it was a super game-y element that you just had to hand-wave away either. It also doesn't result in the player wasting time in needless inventory management like it does in W3. Respecting the player's time is what many RPGs seem to go out of their way to not do.
trunkage said:
I would say that the older and newer games have the same percentage of fluff. But, if its longer, you're going to get tired of the game and fluff would be more aggravating. Or at least that's my theory. My other theory is based on the newness of the quest to you. My assistant thought the quests in Fallout 4 were fantastic but she was only 19 at that time and never played RPG. Me, playing Fallout from the start, was not so enamored.
I would agree because the longer game is wasting more of your time technically. Same for the second one as well, I really enjoyed Fallout 3 (1st and only Bethesda game) for somewhere between 20-40 hours but never finished it nor will I probably ever play another Bethesda game.
Seth Carter said:
The more faulty game design tends to be anchored around two factrors.
One is the concept of a single character does everything in the open world. Definitely this has been a design intent in Elder Scrolls. You literally can't master a skill in any vaguely organic fashion if you just pursue the directly in character options in them. The game is clearly built around a character interacting with most or all of the content on a purely mechanical level. Similarly in Fallout 4 (and 76), have their whole "Here's a tour of every single faction embedded in the main quest, even if its utterly nonsensical that you'd work for all of them".
The other side would be the linear narrative dropped into the open world structure. Whether its the Dragonborn, whichever Assassin, Aloy, Mad Max, Captain McAndromeda, or what have you. The main quest is always the same beats in the same places. That basically destroys the concept of replays where you do different paths through the world and engage with the side content, because every time you do you have to wade through that same identical slog again. Which then gives you a giant demoralizing 60 hour chore list rather then a set of diverse 10-15 hour play throughs, or you have to include 4-6 hours of rerun on every go through.
The main reason to replay an RPG is usually to play a different class because very few of them have choices done well enough where you wanna play the game again and see what plays out when you make different choices. And, that's what RPGs should really focus on because that's what makes them different from basically a long sub-par combat game. That's a reason why they should also be shorter because it becomes more and more complicated and harder to have player choice actually matter the longer the storyline is. Most of Mass Effect's big choices are side stories that branch off the main narrative because the amount of writing you'd have to do with regards to the main narrative to make all those choices matter is just ridiculous and unfeasible. I don't get why people were so upset with ME3's ending with regards to their choices not mattering because the you just have funnel the plot to a single point unless you're going to write like 50 different unique endings. Of course, the ending could've been written better but the endings were never going to be vastly different.
hanselthecaretaker said:
I?ve only played Witcher on PC so have no experience with gamepad controls, but have never had a problem with KB/M in the series. Sure, it can feel different coming from another game like anything, but it?s only been a matter of adjustment and hasn?t hampered playability for me personally. In fact I really echo this guy?s thoughts [https://www.gamesradar.com/witcher-3s-combat-isnt-flawed-its-just-more-real-you-expected/] about TW3 striking a good balance in the way it depicts swordplay.
I like the guitar analogy you used and agree there is much room for improvement like the guy in that article said, but still think in terms of games that are currently out that only so much can be considered ?fresh? gameplay design. Even a game like Bayonetta where you have so many ways to extend a combo, the law of diminishing returns applies heavily, at least to me. I haven?t played the game in a couple months, because I realize there really isn?t much else to it outside of that. Engaging content is ultimately in the eye of the beholder.
Geralt changing direction is like a car, his turning radius is ridiculous. Have CDPR never seen a sports game of any kind where human athletes can change direction quickly even when sprinting? Not to mention witchers have even better dexterity than humans. Just running around town in W3 was not enjoyable. I was not at all a fan of the combat because 1) there are quite a few super obvious exploits that remove all challenge whatsoever (which isn't even some type of god build or anything but just basic abilities you get at the start of the game) and 2) the game's combat system was designed mainly with humanoid combat in mind (as that article even alludes to) and thus the monster fights suck ass (and witchers are monster hunters). It would be like having Horizon's combat system being designed for human fights thereby making the machine fights lame. Also, games like Kingdom Come and For Honor at least attempted to do sword fighting in a much more unique way (I haven't played either so I don't know how successful the combat systems were but they definitely tried) than W3's mishmash of Arkham and Souls combat. Oh, and you also have Sekiro that has unique swordplay combat to it.
Bayonetta's combat is more about being quick and efficient getting those wicked weaves out (which basically end combos) and using the dodge offset mechanic (new and fresh to the genre). The game is a lot more about doing the right attack for the situation vs learning combos; like you wanna know mainly just 4 combos at minimum (a wicked weave that knocks an enemy up, down, left, right for positioning purposes), learn to do punish attacks to get your magic up to unleash torture attacks, using enemy weapons against them, etc.
I like Aloy far more as a protagonist than Geralt, who I found to be rather dull, it was the characters around him that made everything interesting. Geralt was kinda like the straight-man in a comedy, you need him there for the other characters to work but he's nobody's favorite character. It's been awhile since I played Horizon, I feel like everyone respected/liked Aloy for something she did vs just liking her because she's the protagonist/seeker, it didn't feel artificial. I'm not trying to say Horizon is some perfect example or writing or anything but I feel like it did just enough (and possibly a bit more) for all the character and story beats to work and feel satisfying, basically about 7/10 in the writing department, with W3 being an 8/10 for me (I didn't care for the main storyline that much honestly).
I'm fine with Aloy, but I can't say I really like her, though I don't really like any of the characters in HZD apart from Nil. Everyone is extremely passable. Geralt is relatively dull, but then he's also kinda old and tired. And you can sense this tired sadness to him whenever he's faced with a decision where there's no clear victor and somebody gets screwed over. And then there's the relationship with Yennifer (if you choose to pursue it), where he's in love with a woman who might love him but doesn't exactly respect him, and he knows this. But what's he gonna do?
Geralt has those moments where the hardened Witcher act sheds to reveal he can be just as much of a shmuck as the next guy.
Aloy feels too much like a moral compass from the very first scene. You'd think that Aloy being raised by a man who is very adamant in following the law of the Nora would result in her having some of the same sentiments. But for some reason she has a very early 2000's sense of justice, probably to make her more relatable to players. But it doesn't make much sense for her character, and it leaves very little for her to grow. Rost's death doesn't even have much of an impact on her other than she really wants to get the killers. I hate to pull God of War '18 in here again, but there you could feel how Faye's death hangs over Kratos and Atreus throughout most of the game. In HZD with Aloy.. not even a smidge. Rost is pretty much forgotten once he dies.
There's this piece of concept art of Aloy where she's much younger looking, I'd say about 15, sporting that same hairdo she has during the very beginning of the game, and in it she looks much more like she's still figuring herself out. And it's this character that I wish we would've gotten. Someone who has known nothing but Nora law all her life and believes it to be true, only to have her eyes opened slowly throughout the game.
I like Aloy far more as a protagonist than Geralt, who I found to be rather dull, it was the characters around him that made everything interesting. Geralt was kinda like the straight-man in a comedy, you need him there for the other characters to work but he's nobody's favorite character. It's been awhile since I played Horizon, I feel like everyone respected/liked Aloy for something she did vs just liking her because she's the protagonist/seeker, it didn't feel artificial. I'm not trying to say Horizon is some perfect example or writing or anything but I feel like it did just enough (and possibly a bit more) for all the character and story beats to work and feel satisfying, basically about 7/10 in the writing department, with W3 being an 8/10 for me (I didn't care for the main storyline that much honestly).
I'm fine with Aloy, but I can't say I really like her, though I don't really like any of the characters in HZD apart from Nil. Everyone is extremely passable. Geralt is relatively dull, but then he's also kinda old and tired. And you can sense this tired sadness to him whenever he's faced with a decision where there's no clear victor and somebody gets screwed over. And then there's the relationship with Yennifer (if you choose to pursue it), where he's in love with a woman who might love him but doesn't exactly respect him, and he knows this. But what's he gonna do?
Geralt has those moments where the hardened Witcher act sheds to reveal he can be just as much of a shmuck as the next guy.
Aloy feels too much like a moral compass from the very first scene. You'd think that Aloy being raised by a man who is very adamant in following the law of the Nora would result in her having some of the same sentiments. But for some reason she has a very early 2000's sense of justice, probably to make her more relatable to players. But it doesn't make much sense for her character, and it leaves very little for her to grow. Rost's death doesn't even have much of an impact on her other than she really wants to get the killers. I hate to pull God of War '18 in here again, but there you could feel how Faye's death hangs over Kratos and Atreus throughout most of the game. In HZD with Aloy.. not even a smidge. Rost is pretty much forgotten once he dies.
There's this piece of concept art of Aloy where she's much younger looking, I'd say about 15, sporting that same hairdo she has during the very beginning of the game, and in it she looks much more like she's still figuring herself out. And it's this character that I wish we would've gotten. Someone who has known nothing but Nora law all her life and believes it to be true, only to have her eyes opened slowly throughout the game.
Yeah, I've seen that one. I think Guerilla officially released it as a congratulation to Santa Monica Studios for GoW '18 being so well critically received.
After MGS5 and Witcher 3, I was burnt out enough on open world games that I called a personal boycott against them.
I backtracked on that for Zelda: BOTW, but it'll take another game of that caliber for me to even consider playing another open world game. Horizon Zero Dawn might be good enough to try, but I haven't gathered up enough patience to play beyond the introduction.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
