Quote:

Original post by TechnoGoth I for one found Morrowind extremeloy boring. I think it was mainly do to the fact that I never seemed to be achomplishing anything, as well that most of the game time seemed to be spent walking from place to place. On the other hand I was always a great fan of the fallout series. But what made the two so diffrent? I think the answer is being kept busy in fallout there was plenty to do in each area as well as random encouters enroute to other areas. There was also a definate sense of progress and results to the players actions. Where as in Morrowind I spent most of my time doing odd jobs for guilds none of which seemed to have much of an effect on anything, as well as that I could not progress in the story because I hadn't reached some arbitray level.

Amazing! Someone else who feels the way I do about those two games. :D

Anyway, it's not that I have agoraphobia as such (loved the old Elite games, and played them for months. You don't get much more open ended than that)

But Morrowind turned me completely off.

I think Numsgil is really on to something though.

The problem is not having too many options, it's not having any data to base your decisions on.
In Fallout, I knew that I could go to A to finish one quest, to B to finish another, or to C just to check it out. I could go anywhere, yes, but I also had a few hints about what I should expect to find at each place. To begin with, you're looking for a water chip, so Vault 15 is a logical place to start your search. Sure, you could go any other direction, but why would you?
You always know that "if I want this, it would probably be a good idea to go there.

In Morrowind, you rarely had anything to tell you where to go. Practically every npc in the game said the exact same things, the quests were similar no matter where you went, and, well, you could go any direction, but you didn't know what you'd find there, so you had no way to choose, other than close your eyes and pick a direction at random. How are you supposed to know whether city A makes more sense for you than city B, or even just walking straight into the wilderness?

Even in Elite, you could go anywhere, but you had a lot of factors to base your decisions on. You wanted to make a profit, so you had to pick a system where you could sell your goods at a good price, or you wanted to fight, so you'd pick somewhere with lots of pirate activity.
Basically, you knew roughly where to go to find what you wanted.

I think that's important.

If you played FFX, you'll remember the first thing you noticed when you entered the sphere grid. Titus started next to a lock. It was friendly enough to be named Level-1 Lock, but it presented a course through the grid that more or less had to be followed with a few branches here and there before you reached another Level-1 lock that had a set of paths behind it. After a while of playing, you'd soon realize that the level-1 lock at the start was serving a dual purpose, to push you at the beginning of the game along a set course, but also to allow Kimarhi onto Tidus's path.

I personally shifted everyone through Lulu's low level magics path. But thats beside the point.

The point is that you could ease the player into choice by making the first one for them but allowing them to go back and make the alternate choice later. Or not at all.

On another note, sometimes the boundaries can help. Play Star Control 2: The Urquan Masters. The universe in that game is freaking huge if you spend the time to mine a lot of the stars. But from the start you can see the enitre map and the names of all of the stars. Most FF games also let you see the whole world map. It may make it look big and daunting, but it also gives you a good view of where you'll be going next so that you can start investigating your choices.

Its probably scary to be asked out of nowhere "STOP THE NUCLEAR BOMB IN NEW YORK" or "STOP THE GENOCIDE IN BRAZIL" and not being told whats going on.

The whole point of Morrowind is that the player is free to so whatever (s)he wants, and I for one welcomed that freedom.

It isn't that freedom that is the problem, nor the wide open spaces between cities, it's the lack of things to do between towns and the slow speed of travel.

Daggerfall was a much bigger game, but it allowed you to buy a horse and/or use fast travel.

I haven't played Morrowind anywhere near as much as I played Daggerfall when I first bought it, and the main reason is the increased time it takes to explore new areas.

I think that people have pretty much hit the nail on the head. It question of infromation and time. The player should ideally have some basis to make their decision on where to go on. Picking at random is hardly and ideal approach. Second is the time it takes to get their if I spend 2 hours wandering through the wilderness trying to find the place I decided at random to go only to arrive and relize that I made a bad decisions thats two hours that I've lost.

So if the player at the start of the game has a choice of 8 destinations to travel to, then they you should provide enough information as to what they can expect by going to those places. As well is should take very little time to get to them so that they don't as that if they decided they've made the wrong choice they don't have to spend a great deal of time backtracking.

I think the games that get it right aren't truely as open-ended as they appear to be. The best games of this type, are the ones that give the illusion of freedom, within a well planned, ever progressing structure that the player can't truely deviate from. I could give a lot of examples, but what they all had in common was a clear progression of the storyline that the player couldn't get truely lost from, while letting the player feel like he was free to explore, do side quests, fight for fun and experience or money, whatever. But clearly, there was a purpose to everything the player did and could do, and the game was still being advanced even when the player wasn't actively focusing on the main quest or plotline of the game.
Personally, I could never get into most MMORPGs. I don't like being dropped into a world and being told: "do whatever you want". I want a clear goal, I want a clear structure, I want a clear purpose for playing and results to my actions. I especially hate that screwed feeling that comes from entering a level/area and not being prepared for it, because the game didn't make me do what was needed in previous areas before advancing. Good structure and game design makes for a much more fun experience.

Thank you for all the input, folks. I haven't been replying because I just wanted to absorb the feedback here.

The discussion reminds me that there are at least two different types of gamers: Those that enjoy sandbox play and those that enjoy structured activities. Neither is right, but if you dump one into the environment of the other they'll be very dissatisfied.

Quote:

Original post by DrewCaliburClark I think the games that get it right aren't truely as open-ended as they appear to be. The best games of this type, are the ones that give the illusion of freedom, within a well planned, ever progressing structure that the player can't truely deviate from.

I don't think the answer, despite my frustration based response of claustraphobia, is to impose linearity or to create gates and walls that can be unlocked only by advancing the plot. What if you don't want to follow the plot? You will have turned to a freeform game because EVERY OTHER GAME OUT THERE forces you to follow along.

I do, however, like the key-based approach which can help funnel you to areas where the designer THINKS you will have a better time given your character's level of advancement. I'm opposed to the idea of only being able to unlock parts of the level as a result of advancing the plot, but I have no problem with only being able to access areas as either part of plot advancement OR part of character advancement (if you don't win the key from a mission, you can skill up enough so that you don't need it). Admittedly, this may harm the story, as you'll be rewarded something you don't need in later levels, but I think that's the price of freedom.

Quote:

I want a clear goal, I want a clear structure, I want a clear purpose for playing and results to my actions. I especially hate that screwed feeling that comes from entering a level/area and not being prepared for it, because the game didn't make me do what was needed in previous areas before advancing. Good structure and game design makes for a much more fun experience.

I understand the desire to have your actions be purposeful within the larger context of the world. However, what mechanism, if any, would encourage you to take on complete responsibility for the situations you get yourself into? (Sorry if that sounds like a loaded question, it's not). IOW, open-ended gaming is like camping IRL: Part of the fun of adventuring itself can be choosing your route, making preparations and outwitting the environment.

My philosophy is to not waste your time but also allow you to get in as deep as you want. If the game lets you get in over your head, there must be mechanisms in place where you the player think "I could have done better" rather than "damn this game, it never should have allowed me to do this."

Quote:

Original post by TechnoGoth I think that people have pretty much hit the nail on the head. It question of infromation and time. The player should ideally have some basis to make their decision on where to go on. Picking at random is hardly and ideal approach. Second is the time it takes to get their if I spend 2 hours wandering through the wilderness trying to find the place I decided at random to go only to arrive and relize that I made a bad decisions thats two hours that I've lost.

I think you're right about this. You need to get a sense of a place at a glance, and at least have SOME idea of what might be there. I think you can still have terra incognita, but there need to be ways of getting information about a new place, maybe via maps, probes or lore. It would seem, though, that this information needs to come to the player quickly, rather than having to be searched for. Having a virtual internet / comm system you can always tap into seems to be the way to go.

I also agree with what many have said here: Wandering for long hours to get from place to place can kill an open-ended game. Morrowind actually has 4 different means for teleporting about the map, but they can't compare to Fallout's overworld quick travel system.

Quote:

So if the player at the start of the game has a choice of 8 destinations to travel to, then they you should provide enough information as to what they can expect by going to those places. As well is should take very little time to get to them so that they don't as that if they decided they've made the wrong choice they don't have to spend a great deal of time backtracking.

A side question, though: If you can just nearly teleport anywhere around the map, how do you awe the player with the size of the territory they're in. If Daggerfall or Morrowind had allowed you to teleport to every place of interest, you'd never get a feel for the size of the land. However, maybe this should be player's choice? Maybe you should get a bonus for using overworld travel, which is speed, and a bonus for walking around, which could be treasure and hidden locations?

Quote:

Original post by Wysardry It isn't that freedom that is the problem, nor the wide open spaces between cities, it's the lack of things to do between towns and the slow speed of travel.

Quote:

Original post by Kars And Morrowwind had, what, five types of monsters?

You know, Morrowind might be a bad example because the spaces between the cities really almost were empty, at least in terms of the land itself. And once you got strong enough to fight the monsters, fighting yet another worm or rat was a nuisance. Now they tried to make up for this with the huge number of caves and tombs, but I started avoiding them when I became concerned that I was cheating myself of some quests when I discovered plot-specific items on dead characters.

Morrowind I think suffered from a lack of repeatable, engaging activities when in the wilds. This could have been hunting, but pelts were near worthless; it could have been potion-making, but potions were near worthless for the effort involved. An open ended game must fill the empty spaces with something that's challenging and fun and can be done over and over until you get ansy and want to move on.

Quote:

One of the problems I had with Morrowwind was, that I would be doing a main/guild quest and get side tracked on another small quest that just sounded interesting. I would then get sidetracked on yet another small quest or have to break for a few days. When I finally decided to get back to the main/guild quest, I would open my trusty log, then page back...... page back...... page back, etc until I finally found where I left off. One thing you could do to fix this, especially for a sci-fi game, is to be able to organize the log. I.e. pull up all entries based on a specific quest, when you give up on a side quest you can mark it as a lost cause, do searches, etc.

Yes, I very much agree with this. btw, for Morrowind one of the later patches fixed this, but I think it was too late by then for some.

Quote:

As far as the quests go, maybe give a hint (call a friend on the cellphone) button some where so if the player gets stuck.... This happened to me in Morrowwind several times. One time I was in the right cave and went through it inch by inch about 20 times gave up, came back later and search it again. Finally went to a walk through and it told me what room in the cave I should be in. I got there and still couldn't find the place...... then I looked up and smacked myself in the forehead. After that, if I had the slightest difficulty finding my objective I just went to the walkthroughs.

I've got randomly generated missions and environments planned, so this is going to be tricky, but I'll see what I can do to embed the hint system into the gameplay itself. When you get stuck, it's usually because you can find a trigger, be it an NPC to talk to or a door; or you're lost.

I think the spatial aspect can be handled with some notion of scanning for specific items by class (keys, activation plates, etc.) and that can fill in the map at the price of making enemies aware of you. As for NPCs, I've got a fallback gimmick involving elusive AIs in the gameworld who thrive on being information brokers, and this would be the same as the game revealing to you pieces of the real data that goes in to making up missions.

Quote:

Another possible option is the ability to buy a map. Not a completely detailed map but something that shows the major cities. When you get to the major city then you can buy a local map with more detail, not building by building but by area. Slums here, red-light district here, list buisnesses, etc.

Maybe there should also be a traveller's service as well: Sign up with them for a modest fee and you automatically get the map wherever you

Quote:

Original post by Pxtl The problem is that many of these "Freedom" oriented games have horrible learning curves as the player tries to figure out what they're supposed to do entirely by trial and error. As a wage-slave, I don't have time for crap like that anymore - I gave up on Zelda: Ocarina of Time for similar reasons (made it to Hyrule field and then spent a few hours trying to figure out where to go next, then gave up). Some games do an okay job of it (the Final Fantasy titles are pretty good at giving you freedom but also giving you clear goals) but many do not.

What about the idea of an instant action mode? Most of the scenarios I envision you getting into will be as a result of semi-random encounters. What if you had VR pods that would allow you to face challenges in the game world quickly by getting in and out. If I can generate them as a result of you moving around on the map, it should be relatively easy to generate them in place when you activate some equipment.

I would say that you could increase your skills and level up doing this, but you would not be able to increase your reputation, which is as important in this game as experience is in your standard RPG. What I'm thinking is that you could level yourself up to a point (only as good as the VR sim is) then go out there and kick real butt, thus eliminating some of the back and forth and trial and error.

Of course, the sims could not be 100% high fidelity and cover EVERY situation you'd get into, otherwise they would be a powerful disincentive to not travel the map (putting them in might do that anyway, so it's a big risk).

Quote:

Original post by Dobbs I find that too many choices early in a game is most overwhelming because I have no prior experience, nothing to base my decisions on except gut instincts that can turn out wrong because I'm not on the same wavelength as the designer.

This is a great reminder. Whenever I replay something like Civ or Morrowind I get into the game much quicker because I know what to expect. Some of this can only come with experience, unfortunately. But some can be controlled by the designer warning you through NPCs about certain risks or dangers, or by gracefully limiting options (money and resources is a good way, access to important NPCs might be another).

Quote:

For example, should I not buy missile countermeasures early on, and spend the money on more cargo bays instead for trading? What if the first time I launch it turns out everyone is armed to the teeth with missiles?

What do you think about super safe, heavily policed beginner areas as a counterweight to this? This solves the problem of safety, but it doesn't solve the noncombat choices that may also arise. But what I found with friends who were reluctant to adventure in Morrowind was the number one fear was of dying, especially when they didn't know what was lurking in the woods.

Quote:

I think a skippable, seamless in-game tutorial would work best. Morrowind had the right approach to this by giving you an initial assignment to reach the guy in Balmora, who gave you missions and taught you a bit about the state of the world. Unfortunately it was far too brief, not in depth enough, and far too isolated compared to the sheer size of the world.

Yes, I think somehow the in-game tutorial should have touched on EVERY aspect of gameplay, from thieving to sneaking to alchemy to magic and beyond. While I think it's important to let players discover some of this on their own, I don't think most people are going to try if they don't know it exists, and they certainly aren't going to plan. (In fact, I didn't know that theiving took in the value of the object until I read this thread).

Quote:

I think your game world could have a similar approach. The player needs to be introduced to the various modes of travel and the random encounters they entail, exploring new areas, combat, psionics, etc. Set up a mini scenario that involves a number of these in bite size chunks, and without significant threat to the player (ie if they screw up a bit it's not going to cripple their ship or put them in the poorhouse). You can frame it like "the player is a newly commissioned military captain assigned his first mission." That mission is a bunch of script generated (instead of randomly generated) events. ... I'm just going on memory from your many posts so I'm sure I got some terminology/technology wrong, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Yes, and thanks, this sounds like the right way to go. It would be neat if this blended in with character creation in a very explicit way so that you could optionally start playing as soon as you loaded the game (as in make a character & then start, or start playing the tutorial and interactively develop a character). The scenario I was thinking might work for all character classes and set the story is that you're on a family owned ship coming to the starting area, and you have an aunt or uncle who's the captain showing you the ropes. Every character on board would represent some form of gameplay, and every event would touch on some sort of encounter.