-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Scale of map size in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
- Thread starter EatChildren
- Start date
It's not a simple matter (http://www.warhorsestudios.cz/index.php?page=blog&entry=blog_011), but I also fall more on the realistic side of things than the "I need something interesting every 50 meters" one.
The only RPG which ever did fully traversable realistic-scale content was Daggerfall.
Alcoholikaust
Member
monstrous. glad I will be apparantly spending most of my summer with Geralt
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
All you amusement park lovers are why we can't have nice things, empty space is awesome.
Only if the empty space has some amazing design to it and not just flat grass,desert,snow,etc land.
daninthemix
Member
I agree. Skyrim's empty space was gorgeous and tranquil. Not necessarily things today's ADD kids are interested in, granted.
Do we know (or at least have an idea of) how big the world is in terms of square miles/km?
I don't know if it's the best ever because i don't know if it's better than the first two Gothic games (and what these titles accomplished when they were released is difficult to match, to use a pretty big euphemism), but it's certainly up there. What a fantastic game, i really hope CDP looked up to PB's works as much as they said they did.
I don't know if it's the best ever because i don't know if it's better than the first two Gothic games (and what these titles accomplished when they were released is difficult to match, to use a pretty big euphemism), but it's certainly up there. What a fantastic game, i really hope CDP looked up to PB's works as much as they said they did.
Alcoholikaust
Member
52 sq. miles. approx. 3.5x the size of playable skyrim world
according to:
http://www.*****************/2014/0...s-by-themselves-3-5-times-larger-than-skyrim/
Jawbreaker
Member
More importantly, why does he have two swords? Does he lose them often?
TatteredHat
Member
For all that is sacred, please don't be filled with collect-a-thons and meaningless sidequests.
Alcoholikaust
Member
One for humans one for beasts.
"Oy Witcher, We put up these towers all over the land so in case of emergency we can send out smokesigns. Now all the fires ave gone out! Climb the towers and relight the fires, will ya? Oh and be careful,some of them might be in need of some repairs, haha."
When I watched the video I was expecting the "zoom-out moment" to be impressive... but not really.
I'm still confused how this world can be believable, I mean, everything seems really close to each other. Castles, villages,...
I'm wondering if we'll ever see wild open worlds where you have to travel hours on horse back through empty valleys and plains between POI.
I'm still confused how this world can be believable, I mean, everything seems really close to each other. Castles, villages,...
I'm wondering if we'll ever see wild open worlds where you have to travel hours on horse back through empty valleys and plains between POI.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Skyrim = 38 km2
Novegrad/No Man's Land = 72 km2
Skellige Islands = 64 km2
+ Kaer Morhen
+ White Orchard
Braag
Member
I said the same thing once and some Witcher lore expert cut me short and said "actually, they're both for monsters, the silver one is for magical monsters and steel sword for non magical monsters. Witchers aren't supposed to kill humans but protect them"
I then thought back at how many humans I killed in TW1&2, Geralt isn't very good at being a Witcher.
It may sound massively bigger than Skyrim on paper, but personally I am not expecting it to feel THAT much larger when actually playing the game. I'm just happy that it will be large enough, with what seems like a lot of variety! So hype.
Phat Michael
Banned
Exactly. I don't see how this is a good thing at all. I'd prefer more densely populated areas with a smaller map and more things to do.
eot
Banned
Based on the comments in here I was expecting a bigger zoom out. Not that I particularly care how large the world it, but it doesn't seem exceptionally large to me at a glance anyway. Plus, these games as large as they may be rarely have an appropriate sense of scale I think, because everything is too dense. Arma II/III feels massive, not only because it is, but because things feel spaced out in an appropriate way and the landscapes feel natural.
Is that including the water tho?
How do you there aren't going to be plenty of interesting things to see and do in the world?
Thanks, so it's in the same ballpark as GTA V, but slightly bigger. Wow. If they really managed to squeeze some "Gothicness" in there... nnggghh
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Those dungeons were the worse. Just a trudge to get through.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
I don't really understand the "smaller, denser" argument if it's at the cost of visual world building immersion with no advantage of quality content. If you listen to CDPR interviews they're reiterated time and time again that with Wild Hunt's open world they want to accomplish two things: quests and points of interest that aren't generic crap but instead hand tailored and unique, and filling the game world with these things so there's always sometime to discover and adventure no matter where you are. I'm not arguing they've succeeded, because who knows, but it's clear they're trying to find a balance between content that actually has quality over quantity, and distributing such content in such a way that the world map is never boring or lifeless.
And it's important to remember that empty play space is still play space. It's part of the immersion world building, the act of adventuring, and likely in many cases the quest arcs themselves. Just because an area might have two "points of interest" doesn't mean those points of interest will be confined to that one spot. A point of interest could take you to previously assumed "empty" parts of the map, as part of a quest arc, where you'll discover something new. Similar to a horse chase or monster hunt. These utilise the "empty space".
I assume yes. The water is can be sailed on, and in some cases open to diving.
And it's important to remember that empty play space is still play space. It's part of the immersion world building, the act of adventuring, and likely in many cases the quest arcs themselves. Just because an area might have two "points of interest" doesn't mean those points of interest will be confined to that one spot. A point of interest could take you to previously assumed "empty" parts of the map, as part of a quest arc, where you'll discover something new. Similar to a horse chase or monster hunt. These utilise the "empty space".
I assume yes. The water is can be sailed on, and in some cases open to diving.
lordfuzzybutt
Member
That lore expert is correct. As for "aren't supposed to kill humans", it means Witchers' code do not allow them to accept contracts to kill humans.
The fact that Geralt kills those who got in his way is not the same as he accepting contracts to kill humans as an assassin.
Well, for my Geralt to stay in character, I left Letho alive at the end of TW2. I knew plenty whom straight up murder him instead. :-\
@Open World:
The one thing that bothers me in Open World games is that it is build around and depends on you instead of being a part in the World that moves on with or without you being there.
I don't know why in games you are the only adventurer in a huge world, where only you get attacked by (humanoid) enemies or monsters. There are maybe a few (handful) NPCs that you see or meet outside of cities and villages, but that's way too scarce. It can't be that hard to see some NPC's travelling around the world, explore it, fight some enemies (or monsters fighting monsters) etc. to make a living immersive world can it? The world doesn't need to be filled with lots of content nor having lots of empty space, but it should have a right balance between them.
Yeah, there are mods that do can that (i.e. in skyrim) but I expect it to be in the vanilla game, c'mon it's 2015.
CDP Red seems to remedy that Problem or at least some part of it, but I'd have to play the game myself to see it. I'm looking forward it.
The one thing that bothers me in Open World games is that it is build around and depends on you instead of being a part in the World that moves on with or without you being there.
I don't know why in games you are the only adventurer in a huge world, where only you get attacked by (humanoid) enemies or monsters. There are maybe a few (handful) NPCs that you see or meet outside of cities and villages, but that's way too scarce. It can't be that hard to see some NPC's travelling around the world, explore it, fight some enemies (or monsters fighting monsters) etc. to make a living immersive world can it? The world doesn't need to be filled with lots of content nor having lots of empty space, but it should have a right balance between them.
Yeah, there are mods that do can that (i.e. in skyrim) but I expect it to be in the vanilla game, c'mon it's 2015.
CDP Red seems to remedy that Problem or at least some part of it, but I'd have to play the game myself to see it. I'm looking forward it.
martino
Member
Reach open world realism means lot of worthless space...
It's not a problem if you can skip it if you're not interesting in pure free roaming
I would always prefer quantity even if not always quality in open world than the same thing in corridor !
Imagine if 2D games adopted this open-world philosophy of "bigger = better". You would stomp a goomba in Level 1-1 of the original Super Mario Bros and then spend 45 uninterrupted seconds running to the right before you encountered the first pit or question block. I wouldn't enjoy that very much, so I don't know why the equivalent in 3D is something to be celebrated. Just my two cents.
martino
Member
Sorry but stupid analogy.
It's not a 2d plateformer
It's fantasy simulated world where you assume one people role.
No world is full of interesting content every meter.
You want to kill thing or jump every meter then play plateformer (or if only kill corridor fps)
SneakyStephan
Banned
Size is a really boring metric for how interesting a game is.
All that matters is if it feels like an adventure to progress through the game world, if it tickles the imagination, if there is a real urge to explore
You can have this in a big world or a smaller one.
e.g dragon's dogma: the journey through bluemoon tower was super memorable as was the ascent to the top.
If your game world isn't like discovering narnia or the journey to mordor then it's a failure, big world or not.
I want to be able to remember the locations I visit but just as importantly the journey to get there and the desire to explore instilled by the game to get me go there. aka "I can't wait to see what's next/on the horizon/over the hill"
Few games manage to do this. (because it's hard)
I think any developer who makes an open world game without making this the absolute focus is completely missing the point. (unless its function is that of a pure gameplay sandbox like minecraft or arma or just cause 2, but an open world theme park like witcher 3 is going to rely on the sense of adventure and how satisfying and enticing exploration is to justify being an open world)
We'll see if CDPR can succeed, if they can, sweetttttttt, if they can't, the biggest of MEHs
Any developer who can make a game which nails both the sandbox gameplay and the gameplay mechanics AND the adventure in an open world game is going to be a billionaire, but it hasn't happened (and witcher isn't a candidate for the first one)
All that matters is if it feels like an adventure to progress through the game world, if it tickles the imagination, if there is a real urge to explore
You can have this in a big world or a smaller one.
e.g dragon's dogma: the journey through bluemoon tower was super memorable as was the ascent to the top.
If your game world isn't like discovering narnia or the journey to mordor then it's a failure, big world or not.
I want to be able to remember the locations I visit but just as importantly the journey to get there and the desire to explore instilled by the game to get me go there. aka "I can't wait to see what's next/on the horizon/over the hill"
Few games manage to do this. (because it's hard)
I think any developer who makes an open world game without making this the absolute focus is completely missing the point. (unless its function is that of a pure gameplay sandbox like minecraft or arma or just cause 2, but an open world theme park like witcher 3 is going to rely on the sense of adventure and how satisfying and enticing exploration is to justify being an open world)
We'll see if CDPR can succeed, if they can, sweetttttttt, if they can't, the biggest of MEHs
Any developer who can make a game which nails both the sandbox gameplay and the gameplay mechanics AND the adventure in an open world game is going to be a billionaire, but it hasn't happened (and witcher isn't a candidate for the first one)
dr_rus
Member
Will it be high in TW3 though? I certainly hope that it'll be higher than 50 hor from TW2 which was like a direct "fuck you" to all PC gamers in my opinion.
lordfuzzybutt
Member
I did the same, the book Geralt and my personal Geralt is a man of reason.
Mindless killing is simply not his nature, for example he leaves monsters which he deems good alive and kills those humans whom he deems bad.
I've got a feeling that there's going to be a ton of quality in that map.
maestrillo
Banned
It's really Ok
martino
Member
Fast travel in games is for you the equivalent of time eclipse narration skipping the boring real simulated content never described in books (DD is really a small game (for open world) and build with corridor connected to large areas that helps make epic the path between them (and you're hyperbolizing the epic here imo).
Hoho for breakfast
Member
I don't care about the size as long as it feels right.
I wish that's what she had said.
I wish that's what she had said.
SneakyStephan
Banned
I never mentioned fast travel (don't think it's relevant) but if I read your post right we agree
I don't really care wether or not fast travel is implemented or not, if it's done well and it's warranted then it's great.
DD had fast travel and its implementation (the journey TO a destination being absolutely epic, fraught with danger and against the day and night cycle causing some sense of urgency) did not hurt the sense of adventure and exploration at all, while avoiding any needless tedium.
It's kinda similar to the trip to the next bonfire in a souls game (at least in concept, not in execution), or hell even the airship/buggy/shortcuts in older final fantasy games worked much the same.
Am I the only one who is disappointed that this is considered huge, that this is the best that modern open word games can do? Because lets' face it,
...that is tiny. For reference, a horse gallops at around 45 kph, so you can easily get from corner of the game world to the other in less than an hour. And it's going to betoo damn dense, with monsters and ruins and whatnot popping up every few hundred metres.
Look, I know the game is probably going to be great and that the amount of work needed to create a game world of this size is immense, but the fact is that in the books Geralt can track a single monster across the wilderness for days on end without seeing another soul. I want a Witcher game that lets me experience something like that. A game where you can spend hours exploring and feel genuinely rewarded when you finally find something. A game where you can actually get lost in.
...that is tiny. For reference, a horse gallops at around 45 kph, so you can easily get from corner of the game world to the other in less than an hour. And it's going to betoo damn dense, with monsters and ruins and whatnot popping up every few hundred metres.
Look, I know the game is probably going to be great and that the amount of work needed to create a game world of this size is immense, but the fact is that in the books Geralt can track a single monster across the wilderness for days on end without seeing another soul. I want a Witcher game that lets me experience something like that. A game where you can spend hours exploring and feel genuinely rewarded when you finally find something. A game where you can actually get lost in.
Sounds like fun!
I agree with places like towns and villages being unnaturally close to each other brakes immersion though.
Travelling long distances is part of the adventure in my point of view. All those quests when you have to find an item or a person who are just 5 minutes away, I don't call that an adventure.
If the game world was immersive enough, then yes, it would be fun.
