Support NeoGAF

[EatChildren]

I just don't see why some people have to instantly subscribe to doom-and-gloom cynicism because of an idea, while ignoring the importance of execution. CD Projekt RED isn't Bethesda. Bethesda didn't invent fast travel. Just because exploration and questing was made inconsequential in their games does not mean fast travel in another game with a different design by another studio is equally inconsequential. It's a fallacious argument.

Like, any time time BioWare harp on about emotional story telling people kick up a stink because they feel, for whatever reason, that it conflicts with the perception of a role playing game that they expect from them, and that such directive always comes at a cost. But nobody gives a shit when CDPR say the exact same thing. Because they got it right with The Witcher. They got it right again with The Witcher 2. And it's quite likely they'll get it right with The Witcher 3.

CDPR has already been pretty vocal that while drawing inspiration from Skyrim's open world, they also feel the game is flawed. They're doing their own open world, with their own mechanics, and their own game design. Assuming that because of fast travel their open world is flawed is, to me, a ridiculous preconception and unnecessarily cynical outlook based exclusively on the mistakes made by totally separate developers. Why not wait and see how CDPR pull it off? Because, you know, they've got so much right so far, in areas where other developers fail, and have the right to try things for the first time themselves.

If they fuck it up, then start worrying about Cyberpunk's open world. But I'm not going to moan about them fucking it up until I actually get to play their very first open world game, and see how they envision and execution the sense of exploration and open world questing.

 

[Hindle]

I really want to use my brain when it comes to the monster hunting. They seem to be allowing you to do so as well.

 

[AstroZombie]

I think the oversharpening on screenshots is PCGamer's fault.

Screenshot on TW3's website:

PC Gamer's version of the same screenshot:

 

[Pinko Marx]

I just don't see why some people have to instantly subscribe to doom-and-gloom cynicism because of an idea, while ignoring the importance of execution. CD Projekt RED isn't Bethesda. Bethesda didn't invent fast travel. Just because exploration and questing was made inconsequential in their games does not mean fast travel in another game with a different design by another studio is equally inconsequential. It's a fallacious argument.

Like, any time time BioWare harp on about emotional story telling people kick up a stink because they feel, for whatever reason, that it conflicts with the perception of a role playing game that they expect from them, and that such directive always comes at a cost. But nobody gives a shit when CDPR say the exact same thing. Because they got it right with The Witcher. They got it right again with The Witcher 2. And it's quite likely they'll get it right with The Witcher 3.

CDPR has already been pretty vocal that while drawing inspiration from Skyrim's open world, they also feel the game is flawed. They're doing their own open world, with their own mechanics, and their own game design. Assuming that because of fast travel their open world is flawed is, to me, a ridiculous preconception and unnecessarily cynical outlook based exclusively on the mistakes made by totally separate developers. Why not wait and see how CDPR pull it off? Because, you know, they've got so much right so far, in areas where other developers fail, and have the right to try things for the first time themselves.

If they fuck it up, then start worrying about Cyberpunk's open world. But I'm not going to moan about them fucking it up until I actually get to play their very first open world game, and see how they envision and execution the sense of exploration and open world questing.

It's like people just love to assume the worst of developers.

 

[goodfella]

Wait, are you actually saying that the problem is with world design then?

Yup... that's embarrassing lol.

As an aside, I don't think the witcher 1 or 2 would have been that bad with fast travel.

 

[-tetsuo-]

I think the positives of fast travel outweigh the negatives. So do most developers it seems.

Lets see that list, then.

 

[Dennis]

I just don't see why some people have to instantly subscribe to doom-and-gloom cynicism because of an idea, while ignoring the importance of execution. CD Projekt RED isn't Bethesda. Bethesda didn't invent fast travel. Just because exploration and questing was made inconsequential in their games does not mean fast travel in another game with a different design by another studio is equally inconsequential. It's a fallacious argument.

Like, any time time BioWare harp on about emotional story telling people kick up a stink because they feel, for whatever reason, that it conflicts with the perception of a role playing game that they expect from them, and that such directive always comes at a cost. But nobody gives a shit when CDPR say the exact same thing. Because they got it right with The Witcher. They got it right again with The Witcher 2. And it's quite likely they'll get it right with The Witcher 3.

CDPR has already been pretty vocal that while drawing inspiration from Skyrim's open world, they also feel the game is flawed. They're doing their own open world, with their own mechanics, and their own game design. Assuming that because of fast travel their open world is flawed is, to me, a ridiculous preconception and unnecessarily cynical outlook based exclusively on the mistakes made by totally separate developers. Why not wait and see how CDPR pull it off? Because, you know, they've got so much right so far, in areas where other developers fail, and have the right to try things for the first time themselves.

If they fuck it up, then start worrying about Cyberpunk's open world. But I'm not going to moan about them fucking it up until I actually get to play their very first open world game, and see how they envision and execution the sense of exploration and open world questing.

NeoGAF has the ear of developers.

If there is a time to voice concern it is now. After the game comes out it will be too late.

Even if they don't change that there will be fast travel the very fact that people are critical might help ensure they think long and hard on how to implement it.

And that is a general point. Voicing concerns lets developers know that there may be people who cares about an issue and so care should be taken in implementation.

 

[EatChildren]

That I can agree with, even if people struggle to voice concern without sounding like raving lunatics.

 

[Krappadizzle]

NeoGAF has the ear of developers.

If there is a time to voice concern it is now. After the game comes out it will be too late.

Even if they don't change that there will be fast travel the very fact that people are critical might help ensure they think long and hard on how to implement it.

 

[GravityMan]

CD Projekt Red should not have shown any media until they had the game running on their new renderer, ideally at a point where we could get videos. Releasing these "worse-looking-than-TW2" shots on their old renderer is just going to make some people think that the final game won't look much better on the new one. I think CDPR messed up here.

Even TW2 on medium settings looks better than this. And the bloom, oversharpening and lens flares look ridiculous.

While I'm excited for TW3...I still have a fear that their vision for the game is just too ambitious. There is a pretty strong risk that execution will fall well short on multiple fronts. CDPR is a very good developer, but they've only released two games (both quite buggy and unoptimized at launch) and they aren't that big of a team.

As for fast travel...just implement the sorceresses' ability to make portals, with reasonable restrictions regarding when it can be used, where it can be used and where it can take Geralt. That would keep it consistent with the lore. And I hope there's no quests designed around FT.

 

[Dennis]

That I can agree with, even if people struggle to voice concern without sounding like raving lunatics.

I know you are not talking about me.

 

[UrbanRats]

I just don't see why some people have to instantly subscribe to doom-and-gloom cynicism because of an idea, while ignoring the importance of execution. CD Projekt RED isn't Bethesda. Bethesda didn't invent fast travel. Just because exploration and questing was made inconsequential in their games does not mean fast travel in another game with a different design by another studio is equally inconsequential. It's a fallacious argument.

Like, any time time BioWare harp on about emotional story telling people kick up a stink because they feel, for whatever reason, that it conflicts with the perception of a role playing game that they expect from them, and that such directive always comes at a cost. But nobody gives a shit when CDPR say the exact same thing. Because they got it right with The Witcher. They got it right again with The Witcher 2. And it's quite likely they'll get it right with The Witcher 3.

CDPR has already been pretty vocal that while drawing inspiration from Skyrim's open world, they also feel the game is flawed. They're doing their own open world, with their own mechanics, and their own game design. Assuming that because of fast travel their open world is flawed is, to me, a ridiculous preconception and unnecessarily cynical outlook based exclusively on the mistakes made by totally separate developers. Why not wait and see how CDPR pull it off? Because, you know, they've got so much right so far, in areas where other developers fail, and have the right to try things for the first time themselves.

If they fuck it up, then start worrying about Cyberpunk's open world. But I'm not going to moan about them fucking it up until I actually get to play their very first open world game, and see how they envision and execution the sense of exploration and open world questing.

Well come on we comment on all games and game design ideas before we get the chance of testing them out.
It'll always be, on some level, based of preconception.

I do think sometimes Gaf concentrates on some key words and goes over board with the craziness, though.. just look at Dark Souls II.

 

[Corky]

I think the oversharpening on screenshots is PCGamer's fault.

Screenshot on TW3's website:



PC Gamer's version of the same screenshot:

What on earth have they done :S

 

[AstroZombie]

What on earth have they done :S

Applied some SweetFX to the screenshots CDPR provided

 

[xenist]

Anyway, I'm dying to see the new combat system in action. But I guess we're gonna have to wait until Gamescom for that.

 

[i-Lo]

As a player who has played the fallout series this gen, I have to say that fast travel really doesn't take anything away (for me) and sometimes it can be a death trap. They could have gone for a system similar to Dark Souls but given the world is going to be so much larger, I guess it made sense in the greater scheme of things.

 

[Famassu]

Yes, so are many other dumbed down features.

Removing tedium and shitty design of pointless backtracking is considered dumbing down now?

 

[goodfella]

Lets see that list, then.

Freedom to make the world as expansive as you like.
Freedom to have quests take place over multiple locations that are any distance away.
Freedom to have the story take you anywhere without it being frustrating.
Backtracking is less frustrating.
Less annoying to get back to quest givers.

Shit, loads more, all these points are related as well. I would rather have a game made without the restrictions of design that arise from lack of fast travel.

Things that are restricted by lack of fast travel would be a better list.

 

[Sentenza]

Fast travel is awesome alot of us don't have 400 hours to burn in a game.

Fast travel saves us time. It's a completely optional feature those with time to burn can easily manually travel each time.

Jesus Christ if this argument isn't unbearably obnoxious, beside being idiotic to the bone.

That's assuming that people who don't like fast travel don't have a busy schedule in their daily life as well.

I'm probably way busier than you. I work in a boxing club/gym and my average day of work ends at 10:00 p.m. when we are not dealing with latecomers (which isn't even that unusual).
STILL, when I play a game I'm thinking about having some quality time, not about finishing it as fast as possible to move on the the next.

"I have time to play 15 hours games but, you know, I can't deal with 50 hours one, I'm too important". Why? Do you necessarily need to finish them in a single day? Do you have some attention deficit or something?

Beside, no one is asking to remove ANY form of fast travel and apart from that I can't think of a single game that would inflate in length that much unless it isn't a shitty game in the first place (hello TES saga!).

 

[bone_and_sinew]

I just don't see why some people have to instantly subscribe to doom-and-gloom cynicism because of an idea, while ignoring the importance of execution. CD Projekt RED isn't Bethesda. Bethesda didn't invent fast travel. Just because exploration and questing was made inconsequential in their games does not mean fast travel in another game with a different design by another studio is equally inconsequential. It's a fallacious argument.

Like, any time time BioWare harp on about emotional story telling people kick up a stink because they feel, for whatever reason, that it conflicts with the perception of a role playing game that they expect from them, and that such directive always comes at a cost. But nobody gives a shit when CDPR say the exact same thing. Because they got it right with The Witcher. They got it right again with The Witcher 2. And it's quite likely they'll get it right with The Witcher 3.

CDPR has already been pretty vocal that while drawing inspiration from Skyrim's open world, they also feel the game is flawed. They're doing their own open world, with their own mechanics, and their own game design. Assuming that because of fast travel their open world is flawed is, to me, a ridiculous preconception and unnecessarily cynical outlook based exclusively on the mistakes made by totally separate developers. Why not wait and see how CDPR pull it off? Because, you know, they've got so much right so far, in areas where other developers fail, and have the right to try things for the first time themselves.

If they fuck it up, then start worrying about Cyberpunk's open world. But I'm not going to moan about them fucking it up until I actually get to play their very first open world game, and see how they envision and execution the sense of exploration and open world questing.

Thank you. You guys need to have more faith in developers that deserve it. Admittedly, there aren't very many that do but CDPR is one of the few. It's the same damn dumb hysteria as there was with Dark Souls 2.

 

[Sentenza]

Freedom to make the world as expansive as you like.
Freedom to have quests take place over multiple locations that are any distance away.
Freedom to have the story take you anywhere without it being frustrating.
Backtracking is less frustrating.
Less annoying to get back to quest givers.

Shit, loads more, all these points are related as well. I would rather have a game made without the restrictions of design that arise from fast travel.

Things that are restricted by lack of fast travel would be a better list.

I'm trying very hard to see your points, but I just can't.
Some of these things you listed aren't even remotely related to fast travel or the lack of it.

 

[goodfella]

I'm trying very hard to see your points, but I just can't.
Some of these things you listed aren't even remotely related to fast travel or the lack of it.

Like what?

 

[Sentenza]

Like what?

The story, for Christ's sake.
Do you actually think you can have a story that spawns over a vast territory only if you are able to warp instantly all over the game world?

On the other hand...

Things that are restricted by lack of fast travel would be a better list.

Well, let's try:

"Things that are restricted by lack of fast travel: THE LIST"
- ...
- ...
- ...

Nope, I can't think of a single one. Sorry.

Let's try the other way around, let me make you a request I already made in another thread (and I'm still waiting a single convincing answer):

I wish that someone who actually played Ultima VII, for instance, would take the time to explain to me how adding unlimited fast travel to that game and removing moongates and runes would improve the experience to *any* extent.

 

[xenist]

Arguments about fast travel and arguments about quicksaving have merged into my mind into a single big mess.

 

[goodfella]

The story, for Christ's sake.
Do you actually think you can have a story that spawns over a vast territory only if you are able to warp instantly all over the game world?

On the other hand...

Well, let's try:

"Things that are restricted by lack of fast travel: THE LIST"
- ...
- ...
- ...

Nope, I can't think of a single one. Sorry.

Let's try the other way around, let me make you a request I already made in another thread (and I'm still waiting a single convincing answer):

Ok, so hypothetically: Game starts at bottom of map, *get quest -> move up map* until at top. Story event necessitates you are back at the bottom of map.

Do you see a potential problem? (btw your... passion scare me a little.)

 

[paperboywriter]

I forget the rules, are we allowed to post the screenshots from the article or do they count as scans?

why are scans not allowed?

 

[Sentenza]

Ok, so hypothetically: Game starts at bottom of map, *get quest -> move up map* until at top. Story event necessitates you are back at the bottom of map.

Do you see a potential problem?

Yeah, I see a (potential) big problem with quest design. That's another thing we already argued in the other thread.
And I see how UFT endorses exactly that kind of shit.

Now, can you please answer my question? Do you have any experience with the games many already listed as virtuous examples? Can you explain me how UFT replacing their limited fast travel systems would improve these games to any extent?

 

[GoofsterStud]

Am I the only one that sees this and goes...

Where is my Cyberpunk 2077.

Don't get me wrong it looks sweet but Cyberpunk 2077 looked fresh to me.

 

[paperboywriter]

Yeah, I see a (potential) big problem with quest design. That's another thing we already argued in the other thread.
And I see how UFT endorses exactly that kind of shit.

Now, can you please answer my question? Do you have any experience with the games many already listed as virtuous examples? Can you explain me how UFT replacing their limited fast travel systems would improve these games to any extent?

calm down dude

 

[goodfella]

Yeah, I see a (potential) big problem with quest design. That's another thing we already argued in the other thread.
And I see how UFT endorses exactly that kind of shit.

Now, can you please answer my question? Do you have any experience with the games many already listed as virtuous examples? Can you explain me how UFT replacing their limited fast travel systems would improve these games to any extent?

So you have to change the quest design to accommodate the lack of fast travel? Is that not restrictive?

No, I have not played UFT.

 

[PFD]

I think the oversharpening on screenshots is PCGamer's fault.

Screenshot on TW3's website:



PC Gamer's version of the same screenshot:

Good catch. Guess the editor is a fan of Instagram.

 

[Typographenia]

Am I the only one that sees this and goes...

Where is my Cyberpunk 2077.

Don't get me wrong it looks sweet but Cyberpunk 2077 looked fresh to me.

I'm excited for Cyberpunk as well, but I adore the Witcher. I don't mind waiting for both. : )

 

[Sentenza]

calm down dude

Thank you for your pointless post.

And I was absolutely calm; in fact that post was even supposed to be "accomodating".
I even asked "please", as a glaring proof.

So you have to change the quest design to accommodate the lack of fast travel? Is that not restrictive?

No, I have not played UFT.

UFT stands for "unlimited fast travel", it isn't the title of a game.

 

[dragonbane]

You have the option to fast travel OR not.

How is this a bad thing? The option is there for people who don't want to spend the limited amount of game time they have backtracking.

The problem is, once fast travel is available all the time, devs tend to forget about quest design. In these games the locations are so far separated from each other so many times you absolutely have to use fast travel if you don't want to go insane. You don't have a choice pretty much.

 

[Mr.Wreckless]

NeoGAF has the ear of developers.

If there is a time to voice concern it is now. After the game comes out it will be too late.

Even if they don't change that there will be fast travel the very fact that people are critical might help ensure they think long and hard on how to implement it.

And that is a general point. Voicing concerns lets developers know that there may be people who cares about an issue and so care should be taken in implementation.

NeoGAF is also completely out of touch with what the mainstream wants. Time and time again the hardcore here have been 100% wrong on what the general public wants. I'm pretty sure Bethesda and many other companies have focus tested how people feel about huge worlds and I'm willing to bet fast travel is a popular feature. There is a reason most open world games have some sort of fast travel option now.

 

[Dennis]

Proudly out of touch

 

[goodfella]

Thank you for your pointless post.

And I was absolutely calm; in fact that post was even supposed to be "accomodating".
I even asked "please", as a glaring proof.


UFT stands for "unlimited fast travel", it isn't the title of a game.

Oh, that's somewhat embarrassing!

And as to my first point? Do you at least concede that? I'm not saying UFT games are better than non UFT games, all I'm suggesting is that UFT games can get away with things that non-UFT games can't.

 

[JaseC]

why are scans not allowed?

Because you're freely and broadly reposting copyrighted content that would otherwise require payment to view.

 

[Sentenza]

NeoGAF is also completely out of touch with what the mainstream wants.

I'm completely disinterested in what "the mainstream" wants, actually. Which is different.

I'm also under the (optimistic?) assumption that quality design isn't a virtue that just true nerds can appreciate, most people need just to try the good things to recognize them.

 

[RedSwirl]

The Witcher universe already has sorceress who can create portals. And Geralt was supposed to have a horse this whole time, but the games were too small to make it work.

I could see that working out in the gameplay. If Geralt has a Wizard/Sorceress with him they could maybe create a portal, but at considerable MP cost or something.

 

[dreamfall]

I'm more than excited. Geralt holds a special place in my heart, and hearing that this will be open world has me anticipating this like no other!

 

[Mr.Wreckless]

I'm completely disinterested in what "the mainstream" wants, actually. Which is different.

I'm also under the (optimistic?) assumption that quality design isn't a virtue that just true nerds can appreciate, most people need just to try the good things to recognize them.

What is good to you isn't necessarily good to others.

 

[RedSwirl]

Man, I can remember people bitching that Wind Waker didn't have enough fast travel, and then later that Twilight Princess had too much.

 

[Sentenza]

The problem is, once fast travel is available all the time, devs tend to forget about quest design. In these games the locations are so far separated from each other so many times you absolutely have to use fast travel if you don't want to go insane. You don't have a choice pretty much.

It's like with the infamous quest compass/all-knowing GPS.

People were all "Oh, it's not too bad, we will just mod it out of the game. If you don't want it don't use it". Then Oblivion came out, the GPS was modded out of the game and... Few hours later a lot of people started to realize the scaring truth: the game often doesn't give you any useful indication about where you are supposed to go and who you are supposed to talk to because it takes from granted that you are following the compass.

What is good to you isn't necessarily good to others.

Maybe, but I care about me, not about other people with no standards.

 

[goodfella]

I'm completely disinterested in what "the mainstream" wants, actually. Which is different.

I'm also under the (optimistic?) assumption that quality design isn't a virtue that just true nerds can appreciate, most people need just to try the good things to recognize them.

I was under the (optimistic?) assumption that you would be able to see, with a bit of discussion, that quality design and fast travel are not mutually exclusive, and that design involves trade-offs.

It seems you would rather ignore me than concede a small point to me, despite how violently you seemed to engage with me when you thought all my points were baseless.

So I ask you again.

So you have to change the quest design to accommodate the lack of fast travel? Is that not restrictive?

 

[ArkkAngel007]

I could see that working out in the gameplay. If Geralt has a Wizard/Sorceress with him they could maybe create a portal, but at considerable MP cost or something.

Why make it cost though? It worked well in The Witcher. Just don't have it anywhere and everywhere with it not being the focus of world/narrative design, and everything is gravy.

Putting a restriction on the use itself just defeats the purpose of the the system.

 

[Sentenza]

I was under the (optimistic?) assumption that you would be able to see, with a bit of discussion, that quality design and fast travel are not mutually exclusive, and that design involves trade-offs.

I'm not assuming that they are mutually exclusives. I'm just very skeptic about the chances those not influencing each other, because empirical observations so far show that they usally do.

Beside, even in "best case scenario", where UFT doesn't directly ruin quest design, pacing and content distribution, it still doesn't improve the game to any extent.
It also makes implicitly impossible to handle fast travel options as a reward, which is mechanic I always liked in these open world games.

It seems you would rather ignore me than concede a small point to me

I simply don't think you have a point, but what can i do? State it over and over in your face?
If you don't agree with me that's it.

So I ask you again.

Well, yes? That's the whole point? You have to build your game assuming that a player gains his right to march through the whole world.

From the other thread:

The idea is something like "I'm leaving my starting village as a noob and I'm struggling to explore even just a small portion of the map. I have a very hard and dangerous journey ahead. Holy shit, I'm playing for hours and that's not even a fraction of the map".

Then something happens. Then after completing some important task you suddenly find this magic rune (or similar device) that allows you to cover a great distance in a short time, then at some point you find -I don't know- a mount. Then a fast mount. Then a portal gate/another rune. Then close to the end game you have a whole set of runes/portals and a very fast/flying mount...
And before you even realized it, you are a powerful hero and you are now are traversing great distances with little effort, just *after* you fought your way through this virtual world.

Try to compare this kind of design with "LOL I'M JUST CLICKING ON THE MAP ON ANY PLACE I ALREADY STEPPED IN!" and tell me in all honesty which of the two is the most compelling.
Plus "I ALSO HAVE THIS HORSE THAT DOESN'T REALLY SERVE ME IN ANY USEFUL WAY BECAUSE I TELEPORT AT WILL, BUT NOW I CAN DO *LARPING* NIGHT AND DAY!".

And just to answer to the second, implied question: No, you don't have to avoid long travels entirely. You just need the sensibility to dose them wisely, to tie them to important tasks, instead of treating the player as the ball in a pinball.

 

[BraXzy]

Personally as long as a game has an open world built around in game travel and exploration, I don't see the problem with fast travel. It allows people who don't want to walk, get to their destination faster and enjoy the game their way.

Admittedly it hasn't really worked well so far with games like Skyrim, but it doesn't change the fact that players should get a choice in how they play their game.

For the same reason that cutscenes can be skipped, gamers who want to do stuff quicker should be able to use stuff like fast travel. It's down to individual developers to provide that as part of a game experience that works just as well without it.

 

[MattKeil]

It's like with the infamous quest compass/all-knowing GPS.

People were all "Oh, it's not too bad, we will just mod it out of the game. If you don't want it don't use it". Then Oblivion came out, the GPS was modded out of the game and... Few hours later a lot of people started to realize the scaring truth: the game often doesn't give you any useful indication about where you are supposed to go and who you are supposed to talk to because it takes from granted that you are following the compass.

And of course CD Projekt RED is identical to Bethesda in everything they do.

Maybe, but I care about me, not about other people with no standards.

Phrasing it like that is a large part of the reason people instinctively ignore you or react badly to your opinion.

 

[Sentenza]

And of course CD Projekt RED is identical to Bethesda in everything they do.

Well, they didn't exactly impressed with their world design in the Withcer 2, and that was a small and very self contained environment, so why should I assume that they will surely prove capable of drastic improvement in a massive open world?
Beside, who said it's a problem that affected just Bethesda so far? It isn't.

Phrasing it like that is a large part of the reason people instinctively ignore you or react badly to your opinion.

Call the S.O.S. Care.