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

[Brawndo]

In most non-MMO RPGs, very little happens in the game world until the player character decides to take and complete quests. Bethesda games are particularly good examples of this. For example, in Oblivion, the supposed demonic invasion from hell never really manifests itself unless you do the main quest. To me, it basically downplays any threat because there is no need for exigency. I always knew the world would pause for me while I went skipping through the forests and picking flowers to put in my potions.

I always thought it would be cool to observe larger events taking place without my input, and then change how I played the game as appropriate. Imagine the world of Fallout New Vegas: the NCR and the Legion would fight their war whether or not the player got involved, and who controls what territory could change as you play. I think it would also be interesting to have rival NPC heroes trying to complete quests or capture treasure before the player does.

My question to you, fellow gamers, is whether or not story events should progress without direct player input.

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

 

[krazykidd]

It's a good idea , but how exacly would someone suceed at doing that without it being heavily scripted? Especially for a single player game. What you suggest is basically a game playing itself with the player as a bystander , which could potentially take all the fun out of a rpg.

 

[Radeonx]

I think it would be cool, as long as they don't restrict content because you didn't do a certain quest in a certain amount of time. You should NEVER be punished for exploring and doing sidequests over the main story in an open world game, so that's the only terrible thing about this.

 

[Phlakes]

Timers are a very, very bad thing in open world games, unless it's a major part of the design, like Majora's Mask.

 

[Allen Marks]

Star Control II did this, without even telling the player. If you got sidetracked, planets started being wiped clean of life, etc.
It was still a great game, and it worked well.

 

[distortedreality]

I think it's great idea for more linear RPGs, but I don't see how it would work in an open world RPG without the gamer getting the shits.

 

[shrekfan246]

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Yes, but not for every game. For instance, Deus Ex: Human Revolution apparently (I haven't tried this personally) will proceed the first mission like normal if you, the player, spend too much time loitering around the first hub area. So, when you do go to the mission, the hostages that were taken will be dead because you took too long and the situation escalated.

I think it would increase the feeling of it actually being a living, breathing world, which would be excellent for massive titles like The Elder Scrolls series. I can't imagine it would be easy to do though, as realistic AI is still pretty hard for most developers to manage, let alone AI that continues on without the Player interfering in a world as large as MorrObliviSkyrim. But yes, I'd love to see, for example, the Stormcloak vs. Empire war escalate even if I decided to not pick a side, just as I would love to be able to simply take out the entire Thalmor presence in Skyrim. But I don't think anything close to that level of . . . freedom and liveliness, for lack of better terms, in video games is going to happen anytime soon.

EDIT: Also, if it meant depriving the player of quests, that would be a bad thing. So again, extremely difficult to effectively implement.

 

[BlindedHunter]

I think that they absolutely should, but it is something to be cautious about doing lest you rob the player of their feeling of control. I think I would try to avoid pulling a Xantos Gambit against the player.

To the cons you mentioned specifically:
- In response to the first issue I would, primarily, leave out any mention of 100% completion - no completion meters or things like that to make people feel bad for not managing it all in limited time. The rest could be chalked up to possibilities on later playthroughs.
- The middle is really about how well the campaign the player is running ties into this, and not about the feature itself. In games like Oblivion you already feel like you have little impact, but in a different way - all the lollygagging about that you do for hundreds of hours between quests is completely ignored by everyone around you, even though that isn't a very heroic way of doing thing. Basically, I think it is a separate issue.
- And again I think the point becomes that if you want to do extra adventuring you can try that on later playthroughs and this just isn't the game where you will be doing it all.

 

[Brawndo]

It's a good idea , but how exacly would someone suceed at doing that without it being heavily scripted? Especially for a single player game. What you suggest is basically a game playing itself with the player as a bystander , which could potentially take all the fun out of a rpg.

It would not have to be scripted. In the New Vegas example, there could be calculations behind the scenes influenced by random number generators to determine troop strength and battles between the NCR and Legion. One game the NCR might lose a city, in another, it would keep it. Of course, the player could always stop their spelunking in vaults and intervene at any time to try to sway the balance of power in one direction or another.

I think it's great idea for more linear RPGs, but I don't see how it would work in an open world RPG without the gamer getting the shits.

I'm more confused how it work for a linear RPG. I can't imagine a game like Final Fantasy having plot points progress without the player when the whole point of a FF game is basically playing an interactive novel.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Fallout 1 did this: You had to find a water chip for your vault within 150 in game days or you would fail. Some people would find this annoying but anyone with good knowledge of the game would know how to finish this quest really quickly. Also, the super mutant army would begin their attack after a certain amount of time has passed in the game.

Personally I think it's good if done right, as it gives a sense of emergency and makes the world seem more living. However, it shouldn't be used for too many things or that could really ruin a lot of quests for the player.

 

[AD-Stu]

Star Control II did this, without even telling the player. If you got sidetracked, planets started being wiped clean of life, etc.
It was still a great game, and it worked well.

^ this - though it definitely came as a surprise the first time I played the game, when I thought I was muddling along doing OK and then suddenly the Ur-Quan had taken over the entire galaxy...

I think in some situations the idea can be applied to effectively build tension in a game: being on the clock to find the water chip in the beginning of the original Fallout, for example.

Cognitively I'd like to see games where things progress without player involvement, and I certainly think some games overplay the need for player involvement (the way Shepard's opinion is all-powerful in deciding who goes to war with who in Mass Effect, for example). Always waiting on the player can lead to some pretty silly situations... and I'm going to pick on Mass Effect again here by pointing at all the different missions based on the "ZOMGZ X is totally going to smash into Planet Y in Z minutes" premise, which trigger exactly the same no matter what point you decide to turn up.

But in my heart, I think I know that developers design games that wait on the central character for everything because the experience would be lessened for most people if it were done any other way - as OP mentions, people would end up missing out on a lot of content. So unless someone comes up with a really good way of executing the alternative, I think we're probably better off the way we are.

 

[UmJammerSully]

Basically you want the main hook of Majora's Mask in a big open-world RPG.

That actually sounds like a winning forumula to me.

 

[Wintio]

I'm playing Mount and Blade at the moment and this game does this completely. The game doesn't give a damn what you do, those kingdoms are going to keep warring and trucing all day long. It's quite a good idea, although I would say there are too many cities/lords to keep track of for many of these changes to affect the player. Also this is probably related to the fact that there is no main quest in the game, you just do what you want, which allows them to get away with this. All quests are randomly generated- which is not a great thing.

I think this game style has a lot of potential but the gameplay has a long way to go (city management is way too limited, diplomacy is very limited etc.) but it shows what current generation "living worlds" look like.

 

[saucecode]

I rekon (if event is significat) the player should be notified that its going down. Participation is not required, but the outcome can be changed by player participation. Pretty simple.

 

[Instant K4rma]

Sounds good initially, but I hate timed events (which is why I never got into Majora's Mask. The whole game is a timed event), and that formula sounds to me like it would implement them to some degree.

I do think it sounds like an inventive concept, though. Skyrim, for example. I'm out doing a quest for someone in Whiterun, and I return to find the hold besieged by Giants while I was gone. Several townsfolk lie dead, and a Giant or two as well, a result of a battle between the AI factions that had been taking place in my absence. A very interesting concept, I'll admit, and one I would like to see put into action as long as actual timed events are kept to a minimum.

[sub] I can't handle the pressure, if you must know.[/sub]

 

[Bad Jim]

I'd say waiting for the player was an acceptable break from reality. It would be really hard to implement the alternative.

You can do the Dwarf Fortress dynamic world thing but a lot of people prefer a scripted story.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I think it would be cool, as long as they don't restrict content because you didn't do a certain quest in a certain amount of time. You should NEVER be punished for exploring and doing sidequests over the main story in an open world game, so that's the only terrible thing about this.

yeah this, also it'd be really hard to adjust all the possible outcomes vs what time you did such, and also, i really don't think this could ever tie into the main storyline as well, i think it'd be better for sub plots.

but hey, it'd be cool to see how it was implemented, and if it works then awesome, if not, they'll know now to do it that way again.

 

[SidingWithTheEnemy]

[...]
I think this game style has a lot of potential but the gameplay has a long way to go (city management is way too limited, diplomacy is very limited etc.) but it shows what current generation "living worlds" look like.

Try the available mods, they are quite awesome...

But you are right, TaleWorlds and Bethesda should Team up for the upcoming TES VI.

This idea sounds very enjoyable, the problem is that you need to feel the importance of your main character and the weight of your actions. If your just an average dimwit with no feeling for the impact of your actions its gets rather boring.

 

[omicron1]

It depends on whether the world has obvious boundaries.

In most games, you're trained to see the boundaries, to play within them and to take full advantage of the extent of content available to you. If part of that content is closed off because you waited too long, that breaks immersion - simply by exposing the rest of the gaminess of the system.

In games like, say, Skyrim (although it has borders, they're far enough away as to be mostly irrelevant) or Minecraft, things like this can be incredibly immersive and provide a driving force that the game would otherwise lack. Because the game is so borderless, a main quest can easily become irrelevant - but knowing that doom approaches changes that, and is (I believe) a key missing piece in the evolution of the open world game.

That's my thoughts on the matter, anyway.

 

[Treeinthewoods]

Personally, I like the fact that I can just put the story on hold and do whatever the hell I want. The Emperor can just sit his ass down and wait until I finish going on a giant killing spree and whatever the else I feel like doing.

It also scratches the old OCD itch a little working out a perfect character over time, I prioritize exploring and leveling up to story progress. And when I think of an armada of Reapers silently hovering around, looking at their watches and waiting it makes me laugh.

In Oblivion I was usually through all guilds and sidequests with the amulet Patrick Stewart gave me, it's why I love TES games so much.