Should events happen in open-world RPGs without player participation?

Recommended Videos

ACman

New member
Apr 21, 2011
629
0
0
There's been a few games that have timed scripted events it usually just makes it feel like you're missing content.

I think the way to go would be to have every event be procedurally generated. Say have a world with multiple kingdoms that go to war or trade or ally depending on balances in the game world and have the player be able to subtly affect those events.
 

NickCaligo42

New member
Oct 7, 2007
1,371
0
0
krazykidd said:
It's a good idea , but how exacly would someone suceed at doing that without it being heavily scripted?
Two words for you: Saints Row 2 (and 3, I think). You can go to rob a bank, and find it already being robbed.

OP: Skyrim. Dragons can attack at any time, and do so at regular intervals. One of them swooped down on Riverwood and killed Alvor and his wife in my game... threw their corpses into the river. Alvor... you taught me how to smith. Gave me my first hammer. *sniff* You will be missed.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,518
4,119
118
Exile 3 had a crude version of this. Various towns are replace by almost identical versions of themselves, and this only stops happening once you deal with whatever threat is going on in that region. For major towns, this was alot of cosmetic bits, walls being damaged and replace by magic barriers, but shopkeepers and so on would disappear. For minor towns, they'd be totally depopulated and/or inhabited by monsters.

I think this was a good idea. Hordes of monsters attacking a place always seemed a bit vague and tenuous, this was the only thing that made it seem "real".

Maybe it'd work better for a game with lots of replay value, as you can't save everywhere at once, you have to pick and choose where you want to save.
 

shadowseal22

New member
Oct 3, 2010
37
0
0
This is an awful idea, I can see how it might look good on paper, but it would end up either cheating the player out of the openness of the world, or or even worse negate most of the experience. The obvious example of a game that puts you on a timer is Majora's Mask, and for good reasons. The thing about Majora's Mask's Timer is that it does not really put a time constraint on your completion of the whole game, rather your completion of small segments of it. The reason this system works is that you are given the ability to turn back the clock at the very start of the game, and while turning back time negated some of the small progress you had made, the large progress was still intact. The reason this system works is that for the most part Majora's Mask is a linear game in the sense that you use items to get to new parts of the game, this way the game can indirectly point you in the right direction so you can make it in under your time limit. You don't need anything to go to the woods, but you do need arrows to go up the mountain, and you get arrows in the woods. To get to the beach you need a horse, but to get a horse you need the goron bombs from the mountain. And to get to the valley you need a hookshot that you get on the beach. The game has broken itself up into small sections that you have to do in order to progress, and while setting time back may set the post boss fight improvements back, you still have the equipment to tackle the next section of the game.

Now lets look at an open world game and why a timer, especially one who can be reset, would not be a good idea. First you need to establish a reason for the timer, in MM it was the moon crashing into Termina after three days,you can't just have a timer for no reason.The issue with this is that the addition of the timer will have a drastic impact on the tone of the game. The reason that Majora's Mask felt so different from OoT is because the effect the timer had on the mood of the game. A timer is a tool chiefly used to make the player feel helpless. I mean how were you supposed to save all of Termina in just three days? This would be okay for an a darker open world game, perhaps something with similar tone to Demon's Souls, because the game's tone would not be effected by this choice, but games like Oblivion (and Skyrim, though I have not played much of it, it looks to have the same general tone) would be vastly different games. The Elder Scrolls games have always been ones of fairly light tone, because at some point or another you would be strong enough to vanquish the great evil. Not only would it change the games tone, but most of the games mechanics as well. The fact of the matter is that an open world rpg's progression comes from a progression in avatar strength (i.e. your numbers get bigger but the combat is still in essence unchanged). If you put the game on any kind of strict time limit, there would have to be either a much more rapid change in avatar strength (most likely rapid enough to make it trivial) or more standard forms of progression would be used. For example a open world game on a timer might start you out with a class choice, that unlike most open world games, that had huge impact on the combat and progression and could not be changed. Let's face it when a huge hellspawn army is being built up you don't have the time to master all eight elements, become the best swordsman in the land, and become a tripple black belt you'd have to pick one and stick with it. The issue here is that this vastly limits the amount of content the player player can take part in. The inclusion of a in stone timer would vastly limit the mechanics ad content of the open world rpg. So let's say you go with a clock that can be turned back. A time limit that can be reset negates all of the non stat based progression a game can have. Say in the time you are given you save a town from a group of bandits on your way over to the ancient mine, well when you reset game back to day one to scale the northern mountain, those villagers are going to get robbed by the bandits now. One of the big draws of an open world game is seeing what you've done have an effect on the world, i.e. if you became the leader of a guild if you reset time you are no longer their leader. The reason that this doesn't ruin Majora's Mask is that you aren't trying to fix Termina, rather you are just trying to stop the skull kid, and therefore reseting the environments is not an issue as they are not the target of focus. I get where you are coming from with the idea of putting events on a timer in an open world game to add urgency to whatever your doing instead of having limitless time to just sidequest at the end, but it is simply not a feasible choice for a huge sprawling world, because players will want the time to explore it fully, and not letting the just counteracts the reason you made it an open world in the first place.
 

midknight129

New member
Apr 1, 2011
49
0
0
There was an old SNES game called Inindo that did this. It took place in the Sengoku Jidai (Japanese Warring States Era) and as you played the game, different clans would fight and take over territory in the background. You could join these large-scale fights if you're in the right place at the right time. The basic goal was to assassinate Oda Nobunaga and you had to do it before he dies of natural causes.

But ultimately, most games are going to operate on the Schrodinger's Gun principal; important plot events only happen when it's relevant to the player. You always get to the final boss just as he is about to activate the doomsday weapon no matter whether you went straight there or sidetracked to solve the rest of the world's petty problems first.
 

the spud

New member
May 2, 2011
1,408
0
0
Fallout 1 had a very limited system comparable to the one you described, and...it was generally hated by everyone who played it (OK, there are like 3 people who liked it, but you know).
 

ksn0va

New member
Jun 9, 2008
464
0
0
Stalker did something like this. You'd get alerted by some dude about an assault and that they needed your help. After about 5 mins. running toward the location I get a message saying something like "Mission Complete, thanks for your assistance" despite the fact that I never arrived.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
No.

Time limits are annoying and stressful, although they can work under the right circumstances.

But time limits that prevent me from fully exploring an environment designed for the specific purpose of exploration are a fucking abomination.
 

Doom-Slayer

Ooooh...I has custom title.
Jul 18, 2009
630
0
0
Brawndo said:
Pros:

+ More tension and suspense from time-sensitive quests and story arcs
+ Adds to immersion, because you are just one character in a living world, not the central figure
+ Dynamic story and events each new game

Cons:

- One could never get 100% completion, so some players might feel robbed of parts of the game
- Players might feel what they are doing doesn't have much impact
- Some might feel that time-sensitive events impose a limit on their adventuring
Theres another problem here too, say in Oblivion for the very first mission, you decide to wait. Oh the Assassins have come in and killed Martin, no chance of beating the main villian exists. Boop game over. Oblivion gates start opening up when your level 2 because you spent all this time doing sidequests, now your screwed because your way too lower level.

The problem with this idea is it sort of breaks how gaming is meant to work, single player games are in the same light as movies as they are a single story held together be coincidences. And anyway, not being the central figure sort of takes the fun out of it, its like saying it would be totally immersive if you could be a villager in Skyrim, where your not the Dragonborn and all these dragon attacks happen on their own. You need things to be based on your actions to actually make it feel like your having an impact.

I also dispute this "+ Dynamic story and events each new game". If things ARENT based on your actions and happen by themselves, what are they based on? Random numbers? A timed event based on the time youve been playing? If its the second option then the game would be absolutely identical each time. Quests happening at set amounts of playtime would be boring as hell there would be almost no replayability at all. Even if you used a psuedo random number generator that did say 5-10 hours into gametime X happens, thats still awfully fixed. It limits the entire point of RPGs, ie doing what you want, and basically turns the game into a linear RPG, which have very little replayability.
 

Dethenger

New member
Jul 27, 2011
775
0
0
Me:
"Ooh! This in an interesting topic. What comes to mind for me is Majora's Mask. I've got time to kill, methinks I'll write an essay explaining why it worked, and other games could work similarly."
-write, write, write-
"Okay, this looks good. I worked hard on it and I think it shows. Let me refresh really quick to see if anyone else has said anything I might want to contribute to. Okay, a few new posts, and--"

shadowseal22 said:




( But seriously, good post. Tip my hat and whatnot. )
 

LordRoyal

New member
May 13, 2011
403
0
0
Brawndo said:
- One could never get 100% completion, so some players might feel robbed of parts of the game
- Players might feel what they are doing doesn't have much impact
- Some might feel that time-sensitive events impose a limit on their adventuring
To #1 a lot of sandbox games do this already.

For example. Morrowind had a faction wars system. Essentially there were three main factions in the entire game that essentially dominate the entire continent. But the catch is you can only join one of them. Two reasons for this. One being the fact all the factions hate each other and don't like mercenaries working with the others. That and later on down the road they each give you a stronghold, and it's always built on the same area in the map so it would force them to have to replace the existing one each time.

I believed this was an amazing idea since it imposes realism. The hardy warrior shouldn't please everybody, from the noble knights to the criminals, nor should the Thief seem worthy to join the ranks of the noble knights when he's scrawny and wears a hood.

#2. This shouldn't be a factor.

The gameplay itself should allow the player to be able to influence some of these situations. Like say for example. Say there's a bandit down the road that imposes a toll, you should be able to say hire a courier and send him off down the road to the next city and have him get murdered by the bandit for refusing to pay.

Not all the decisions at least, but I believe the game shouldn't cater to the player all of the time. The player is still supposed to be just another person in this world, it shouldn't revolve around them. Players should adapt to the game, not the other way around.

#3 see above
 

NerfedFalcon

Level i Flare!
Mar 23, 2011
7,597
1,440
118
Gender
Male
They tried that on a small scale with NPC conversations in Oblivion.

It didn't really work out.
 

The Madman

New member
Dec 7, 2007
4,404
0
0
The idea isn't new, a couple games either do this or have thought of doing this. STALKER was originally famous for a claim by the developers that it was possible for an NPC to 'beat' the game if the player was doing too poorly, but that feature was later removed for various reasons. Still some elements of that remain within the series, NPC will wander and move around on their own tracking down artifacts and getting into fights. It's pretty damned neat to be wandering the wilds and to stumble across a heavily armoured patrol of DUTY members fighting it out with mutants or other Stalker groups as they fight over artifacts, makes the world feel much more alive and also adds to the replayability as sometimes awesome things happen that just can't be replicated. Quests will sometimes even complete themselves as the questgivers set off and either manage to succeed or fail on their own regardless of the player.

Other games do this as well. Sid Meiers Pirates for example and more recently; Mount & Blade. In theory if you left the AI at it long enough eventually one faction very well might end up defeating all the others, it's perfectly possible although also rather unlikely without player intervention. And you know what? That's awesome, but it's also not something I'd want in every RPG. Pirates and Mount & Blade fill a very small niche market of the rpg market, games where the player is expected to create their own epic saga as opposed to following a narrow developer story.

Plus it's always damned annoying when some powerful NPC lord runs off and gets themselves taken prisoner just when you most needed them and their forces to take a castle or defeat another particularly dangerous foe.
 

Cain_Zeros

New member
Nov 13, 2009
1,494
0
0
As long as it's not plot-central events that completely screw you over if you miss them, then it could add to the feeling of it being a living world with things happening.
 

Joccaren

Elite Member
Mar 29, 2011
2,601
3
43
It should be included in all open world RPG games IMO. Add in certain calculations that will randomise battles, but make sure that the system is rigged to keep things somewhat even until the player decides to interfere. With Skyrim as an example, have armies of Stormcloaks go to battle against armies of Imperials at random points in the world, have those camps of each teams NPCs attack each other, have them capture cities and such and supporting one faction will net you favour in their cities, but lode you favour in others. At all times the player is able to interfere to help - say join the defence of Whiterun as the like the Jarl and have a Housecarl there - but would not be required to, and losing the city for one faction only means a changeup in the ruling NPC party. Have the Imperials start crushing the Stormcloaks, until the Stormcloaks deliver a blow at the Imperial Capital in Skyrim, then have the Imperials push back to defend whilst the Stormcloaks recapture their towns and such. All these plots that occur with the PC as the centre of them in many campaigns - the cliched attack on the capital whilst the main army is elsewhere - and could occur without the player being there. If the player showed up, they would be placed in charge of an important role for the attack/defence, but they could just go off and ignore the battle if they wanted to, and have the city get taken, then retaken, and have most of the cities constantly change hands, but no side be completely dominant. Each side would win and lose battles on different fronts as they sent troops to different areas, and the war would be at a stalemate - but at least happening. It would make the world feel alive, not impose a time limit on the player unless they liked the Jarl or W/E of a city and wanted to protect them, and only the player could actually win or lose the war through their interference. Otherwise it would just continue on as a stalemate. Its something I'd like to see, as a Stormcloak and an Imperial encampment situated maybe 1km away from each other just down a road would likely not just sit by and let the other be, they would engage each other for their faction. Its something that I'd love to see, but am constantly disappointed by not being able to.
 

LordRoyal

New member
May 13, 2011
403
0
0
Joccaren said:
Its something that I'd love to see, but am constantly disappointed by not being able to.
Random encounters are in the game. Things like Thieves jumping you from behind rocks or finding a group of Thalmer leading a prisoner are random encounters.