As far as immersion goes what you’ve said seems like the ideal. Most modern games avoid this of course due to rage-quitting and bad reviews which lessen sales. An indie ARPG on the other hand would only benefit from this paradigm.
I would love to see areas of the game off the beaten path where you should be in a group to realistically complete them. The rewards would be commensurate and this would promote group play which is always a good thing. Of course solo players could possibly tackle them if they had an ideal build/gear/etc. Implementation of course would be key…
I don’t post here that often, but I saw this and must say that I would hate it if my single player game was designed in such a way that I couldn’t complete certain areas without a party.
That’s not saying that promoting group play is a bad thing, but you shouldn’t do it by locking off content from players who do not wish to play with a group.
To the topic at hand, I love a far more open area. I think Devs are too worried about “casuals” losing their way too much. If you create an game that people want to play just due to the abilities, world, lore etc. people will “want” to continue on no matter what. They will “explore” to their hearts content and find where they need to go.
If you water it down with arrows and quest markers, the non-casuals will just feel resentment and that you are “dumbing-down” the game to cater towards those other people. And in a way, you would be.
The point is, a game should be challenging in some way, and not just in the combat, but also the exploration. Make a person want to find the correct path. Make a person search it out. Give them the chance to become lost. But also provide them the clues that once they learn them in game, they can use those clues to progress themselves further in later acts and difficulties.
Whether those clues be signposts, roads, a blood trail, a path of bread crumbs, as loing as it is something “in game” and not “out of game” like arrows, exclamation points, a glowing dotted path, or things telling you exactly where to go in order to “progress” the story, we the players will figure it out. We’re not that dumb.
And really, if people are that stupid to have to need those in order to get through the game, do you really want those people dictating how you design it…?
I said that they could be completed by ambitious solo players but the effort/gear involved would be critical. I’m not in favor of forced grouping as well, it’s
bad game design in my opinion. If you want to tell me how to play the game I’m gone. Exclusive content is BS. I was just trying to think of something other than a “Monsters x X” mod as this game deserves something special in that regard. This would require some intensive development though to get it right but it would be so awesome.
On the open world aspect I think back to my early MMO days playing the first Everquest (just post-RoK). It made the game that more immersive/mysterious getting lost, not knowing what the heck I was doing, etc. This was also well before the internet was flooded with all the information on every game and many ruined game experiences for myself… can’t resist…
edit: Oh and I don’t think this game is going to be seeing that many “casual casuals”. It would be great but the advertising costs would be prohibitive I’m guessing.
I think there is a big division between solo and multi play on this subject.
In multi player games, everybody just makes a beeline for the next map/boss quest point. I’ve been in multi games in D3 with 2-3 other players and they will run right past the door to a sub quest without even stopping. It’s why hacks like map hack where created for D2, to point the fastest way thru D2’s random maps.
TQ was different as you well know, every quest had an award that was hard to pass up, XP or a skill point. Every multi player game I played in TQ hit every quest. The fixed map made it easy to find each quest for the experienced players but usually most of the map would end up being cleared for the usual XP/loot drop oportunities.
Solo play for myself is time to stop and smell the roses. Full clears is the common term. When ever I play TQ solo I full clear and while in D2 I don’t visit every cave and sub area, I still fully cleared each map.
Vast open area’s are good in moderation. Such as the open desert map in D3 act 2.
I would say that if it takes more then 10 minutes to fully explore a single area then its too big. Thats not including, killing all the mobs, exploring all the mini-dungeons, and breaking all the destructibles(which is my fav part of a good arpg).
With that being said, the way D3 presently is, is completely linear and NO extra, unique side areas on the maps. What I’d like to see is say you’re in the “Forbidden City” and you need to travel to the “Sacrifical Palace” (just making up names here, bare with me), it’d be neat to see another exit from the “Forbidden City” that is maybe the “Drowned Sepulchur” that has a miniboss or event or something. Just throwing that out there. That will break up the rail-like feeling of current arpgs, being forced to move from one area to the other for the sake of questing.
I’m of the opinion that exploration and progression should be fairly clearly split, like it was in TQ (at least in act 1). There was the path, and then there were extra zones, like the macedonian ruins, or the undead part of the monsters camp (don’t recall if that had its own name) or the Athenian swamp. Of course you could get lost accidentally if you weren’t paying attention, but that was your own problem (you’d be like 1/50 people)
Exploration is good, but its also important to note that discounting casual gamers who might not like the aimless wandering, there will always be (especially?) hardcore gamers who are making a new toon and just want to barrel through the progression so they can test out their new xyz build with that nifty new abc purple they just picked up.
While we’re on the topic, there should definitely be a distinction between openness and mazes. Act 4 of TQ was an especially big offender in this regard due to stages like taskonian ruins, the swamp (forget the name) and fields of diadoci (sp?). They all felt like mazes that I had to memorize every time I ran through them. Though i was fine with the act 1 labyrinth, because it was well. a labyrinth.
my problem with D2 is that I still felt like I was on a path the entire game. People always telling me where I need to go next. I’d like the ability to make my own path through out the game. Having multiple paths getting you to the end result would be a unique way of keeping us casual gamers wanting to continue playing the game. I hate replaying a game, knowing exactly what I need to do next… it makes me think of a broken record playing the hook of a song over and over again. It gets boring.
If you want to hide little quests that don’t have an impact on the game but they are just there for more fun or exploring then go for it. If you want to add unique locations that’ll have players going “WTF” haha then go for it as well.
The thing that worries me about this is how you stated that you are worried if players wonder off the path and lose themselves, Are you guys not going to make a map or an arrow pointing where the quest is located or where to go, or a symbol that represents the main quest or a quest? etc. 0_o If you guys put this in the game there is no need to worry about players losing their way. To be honest that might encourage more exploration, because players don’t always have to worry about sticking to the path and losing their way. Sorry if that doesn’t make any sense.
I can’t speak for everyone but I certainly don’t want too much MMO in my ARPG. However, I will say that MMOs in general do handle the openness or lateralness of their games well just in the sense that, unless its instanced, you risk going to an area and you will die. I like that sense of openness where I immediately know I should get the heck out of there or else.
But I don’t think this needs to be limited to just “zones” and it could be implemented into an ARPG. For example how about that area that you start adventuring in has some tough ass guys and you think, “oh, maybe I should tuck tail and run!”, but you make your way around or barely survive some tough fights and you discover an easier instance/event/area as a bonus for your determination. Essentially an area or story or progression has a reward for those willing to explore or just gives them the ability to take the chance, not some big invisible wall with a debris pile or broken bridge set piece in front of it. Again you can’t always go for complete realism, but if the pile of debris is in the way then I just go around it. If the bridge is out, I just get wet. Let me explore like we were able to in something like Skyrim. But instead of encounters scaling to me, let me get my butt handed to me if I’ve ventured too far. If the map is well marked, the quest details are there, and I see tough guys, I’m sure even the casual gamer will realize they are going in the wrong direction.
Too open is like WoW/Rift where it takes 3 hours to find the dude to kill to finish a quest. As a comparison to D3, where there is absolutely no openness, I always imagined having the ability to wander from one town to the next (more ancillary towns), discovering hidden merchants/quests. You could even randomize it so when playing an area, certain towns/enchanted coves/whatever you want to call it pop up and it adds a certain dynamic that rewards players for exploring your world. When entering these randomized add-on areas, you discover monsters that are slightly more difficult than those found in the immediate quest, but also offer unique opportunities. These area could take 10 minutes to complete to an hour. You can tie in story lines that give you hidden insight or help you gain favor, but you always find some bad ass weapon or great amulet or you find some chest with 100 grand in gold in it. Its not always there, but when you come across these hidden explorable opportunities, there is a chance to be rewarded and it helps break up the monotony of playing the story line straight through.
The randomization in Diablo 2 was barely cosmetic. That said - and I’m sure that someone will correct me on this if I am wrong - Grim Dawn will not have randomized levels like Diablo 2.
What it will have is set levels where certain routes and ways will be blocked and opened up randomly for each playthrough. This could potentially have a much larger effect in deciding what route you take to something than anything in Diablo 2 ever did.
I dig the idea you mentioned about some quests and stuff that are hard to find. Exploration should be rewarded. Being able to traverse new areas freely, zooming out and the ability to rotate the camera, man that’s a dream come true for me. I would really like to be able to put those features to good use on a nice long free roam.
I honestly thought that TQ had a good open field, but obviously not to the extent of, say, Skyrim, but that’s okay. There were enough places to go that you really felt like you were exploring rather than marching. If the quests are really well spaced, I think a quick key for an arrow of some kind would be beneficial. It would only appear on the hot key and would be opaque enough to be able to see where you’re going. If you don’t want it, don’t use it, but it’s your choice.
Sacred is too open. Certain maps in Immortal Throne were not linear enough. That should give a good impression what I’d be looking for in an ARPG. If I want to explore and such I’ll play another RPG sub-genre. When it comes to ARPG’s I want to get in, do my thing and get out instead of spending time doing “useless” things. Other games are for that.
I’ve got a inverted question for you then. How linear is too linear?
with a linear map, there’s really no chance of getting lost, so it mostly comes down to length. with a non-linear approach you can mask that length with width/volume not to mention conceivably place the end point closer to the start so there’s a shorter path start-end.
for myself, too open would be the point at which i become lost, not distracted, distracted is ok, lost as in unable to navigate successfully. to answer my own question, too linear is the point at which i notice i’m on a rail, for some reason that kinda bugs me. so a very clever or skillfully concealed forced linear pathing is probably fine.
on further consideration, diablo 2 did a heck of a job concealing the linear pathing with the various signpost quests. TQ did ok, but the signposts were a bit spread out.
for navigation, i’m thinking landmarks, but that’s hard to do with a fixed focus isometric view.
When it comes to Hack and Slash games I’m not looking for an indepth exploration experience. I’m looking for quick action. With such games I’d like to methodically clear every inch without a lot of backtracking of the map. In Immortal Throne there is a map, some ruins with the lich queen quest, which is a perfect example of not linear enough. The rest of TQ and IT is good enough.
Too linear is like the sidescrolling beat 'em ups or the new Sacred 3
I’m not bothered with illusions to give a sense of freedom. As Dungeonmaster I know how to give of the illusion that the choice of players matter while they in fact do not. Giving them a sense of freedom when there isn’t any. Great to use in RPG’s. But when it comes to H&S I only want in depth character building and loot. Rest of the gameplay is just extra en should be kept as simple as possible in my opinion.
I certainly dont want to encourage Grim Dawn into, what I consider TQ’s only flaw… TOO LINEAR.
I don’t want to feel the DEV’s breathing down my neck all the way through the game ushering me on from A to B. Sounds like Diablo 3 right?
NO NO NO NO NO !!! NOOOOOOOOO!
BIGGER IS BETTER - (Voice over from a wrestiling game back on the PS)
IMO of course
