• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Moose

Prophet of Truth - Hero of Bowerstone
Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,203
As far as I recall, their procedural generation approach is used for the initial baseline of the "big open map" and maybe for the "dungeon maps", but an artist then goes on top and customizes it.

Its not "this is just copy pasted assets arranged this way by an algorithm", its the baseline geometry/dimension/material types and then a real artist work on top of this "canvas" to create the end product.
Right I do remember that but procedurally generating the topography in the early stages of a map and then the level designers carve over it. But that's not the same as the degree of procedural generation Oblivion got. When you look at how random and empty the Colovian Highlands are in Cyrodiil you can tell it was procedurally generated. I don't think it's a fair criticism for Morrowind and then Skyrim onwards whereas in Oblivion it was definitely a detriment to the open world.
 

The Albatross

Member
Oct 25, 2017
39,209
One thing I hate about Ubi worlds is how they fill them with copy/paste models/routines. I had taken some time off from Assassins Creed games. I loved ACII (and the sequels), mostly skipped ACIII, enjoyed most of ACIV, and then took some time off of the series to go back to it with AC Origins.

The open world just lost my attention pretty quickly when I rode from one village to another and the two villages were basically identical. Sure, different layout, different "point of interest," but both villages had groups of women walking around with baskets on their heads, kids running down the street playing hoop and stick, and the same market structures, small huts, and buildings. Sure, "It's all egypt" or w/e, and maybe two towns were truly identical or something, but it just came off as generic. The major cities were cool with their landmarks, but it was the small things that stood out to me and made them feel generic... Sure, one has a giant temple, one is a bustling metropolis, but go to the outskirts and it's mostly the same models, characters, and NPCs doing the same things.

I get not every game can do what Rockstar does with towns/villages/npcs, but it stands out to me now when I play Assassins Creed games.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,285
This is a great OP, way to both define and then state your position here. I'm about 20 hours into AC Odyssey and I'm becoming so bored with it. I want to go explore the world but it seems like the game is intentionally designed to prevent me from doing that.

I never got far into Skyrim and I still never played NV, so perhaps your OP and my current lackluster experience will push me in that direction.
 

Tanston

Member
Nov 29, 2017
343
Great thread, I'm going to grab Kingdom Come based on some of these posts and the current sale price. I kind of ignored it because I heard how difficult/frustrating the combat was but it sounds like it will be worth getting good as they say.
 
OP
OP
Plum

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,322
This is a great OP, way to both define and then state your position here. I'm about 20 hours into AC Odyssey and I'm becoming so bored with it. I want to go explore the world but it seems like the game is intentionally designed to prevent me from doing that.

I never got far into Skyrim and I still never played NV, so perhaps your OP and my current lackluster experience will push me in that direction.

I'd highly recommend New Vegas, albeit only *really* on PC if you can. The console versions are still stuck at 720p/30fps even on a Series X (it didn't even get the 4K update that Fallout 3 did), and the lack of any real mod support is a definite negative. Whilst I wouldn't recommend going for any major mods at the start, there are a few that can be beneficial even if you want to do things 'vanilla'.

Funnily enough, NV is actually one of the most linear examples of the Bethesda open world, so whilst it still has a lot of the same benefits it's simply not as open as Skyrim or Fallout 3/4. The game does open up after a while but you're very much encouraged down a single path at the start. You can still go elsewhere but, well, you'll pay the price if you try lol.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,005
I know the game isn't really popular around here, but I thought The Outer Worlds has a better world to interact with than the real Bethesda ones, simply because encounters didn't feel as generic and everything felt hand-crafted.
 

Leo-Tyrant

Member
Jan 14, 2019
5,149
San Jose, Costa Rica
Right I do remember that but procedurally generating the topography in the early stages of a map and then the level designers carve over it. But that's not the same as the degree of procedural generation Oblivion got. When you look at how random and empty the Colovian Highlands are in Cyrodiil you can tell it was procedurally generated. I don't think it's a fair criticism for Morrowind and then Skyrim onwards whereas in Oblivion it was definitely a detriment to the open world.

Absolutely. I actively dislike procedural generation.

I understand why they use it though (it saves time), so I kinda compromise and accept that they need to use it at first (for the canvas), before an actual artist can customize the whole thing.

I do hate when some devs go wild with procedural generated things though, like some indie games where all the maps are 100% randomly/procedural generated and I can tell in 10 seconds.
 

noinspiration

Member
Jun 22, 2020
2,030
No way. Bethesda's problem with their open world design is that there's almost little connection between the gameplay and world itself. Every encounter, dungeon or what have you ends up playing out the same way as every other encounter or dungeon barring the few number of unique set pieces used by some of the higher quality quests. This makes exploring remarkably dull because no matter what you find it's going to play out in the same way.

Base Skyrim is a dreadful experience.
This was my experience with the Bethesda Fallouts so I was wondering what I was missing. Is this a raider dungeon or a super mutant dungeon?
 

Sacrilicious

Member
Oct 30, 2017
3,379
Bethesda games have a ton (and I mean a ton) of glaring issues but they still have something that others don't.

No other developer has managed to really nail the "go anywhere, do anything, be anyone" role-playing sandbox like they have (especially TES).

Despite all the other issues, they are really the only developer that has cracked that exceptionally difficult genre. It's a shame that mods are so essential to bring other aspects of the game up to par.

One thing I hate about Ubi worlds is how they fill them with copy/paste models/routines. I had taken some time off from Assassins Creed games. I loved ACII (and the sequels), mostly skipped ACIII, enjoyed most of ACIV, and then took some time off of the series to go back to it with AC Origins.

The open world just lost my attention pretty quickly when I rode from one village to another and the two villages were basically identical. Sure, different layout, different "point of interest," but both villages had groups of women walking around with baskets on their heads, kids running down the street playing hoop and stick, and the same market structures, small huts, and buildings. Sure, "It's all egypt" or w/e, and maybe two towns were truly identical or something, but it just came off as generic. The major cities were cool with their landmarks, but it was the small things that stood out to me and made them feel generic... Sure, one has a giant temple, one is a bustling metropolis, but go to the outskirts and it's mostly the same models, characters, and NPCs doing the same things.

I get not every game can do what Rockstar does with towns/villages/npcs, but it stands out to me now when I play Assassins Creed games.

Yeah, too much duplicated content will quickly make the whole experience feel cheap and transparent.

Open world is only worth it if each place feels like its worth exploring. AC can kind of get away with it because the big cities are often such good historical recreations, but anything outside of them tends to be mind-numbingly dull.
 
Last edited:

RedSwirl

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,101
One thing with Bethesda-style open worlds, with all that complex NPC AI and that high number of physical objects, is those games also look and feel really janky. This is a big reason Bethesda games are glitch-prone, and nobody else has really been able to make that kind of game without that jankiness. It's really just Bethesda and a bunch of Eurojank developers.

Ubisoft open-worlds on the other hand look more visually polished.
I've only recently started playing Witcher 3, and one of the things I was surprised and a bit disappointed to find was that from the start the map is full of question mark spots indicating "HEY THERE'S SOMETHING HERE". Traveling off the beaten path and finding something unexpected just isn't a thing.
You can turn those off. I highly recommend it. You'll still discover almost all those POIs on your own through normal exploration as long as you don't fast travel everywhere.
The elements, glider, and the climbing mechanic are intricate features of BOTW. They designed the open world around them and absolutely nailed the interactivity experience. The physics are spot on. However, in my 120+ hours playing BOTW I don't recall many instances of humans/living creatures/animals interacting with each other in the wilderness. I mean sure, I can chop down a tree a build/use it as a bridge but after a while I am looking for some interaction with other humans and creatures and BOTW's open world is lacking in that department.
BOTW has some physics and other systems going on that most other games don't, like the climbing, weather effects, and fire propagation, but mostly it's just a Ubisoft-style game with a somewhat more efficient or lean structure.

When you go into a town you can tell Nintendo probably looked at what Skyrim was doing in terms of NPCs and did a more superficial version of that. They look like they have daily schedules, there are scripted sequences of humans fighting monsters, animals react in a few dynamic ways, and I think people react to rain, but you don't see them reaction to Link the way Skyrim NPCs react to players' actions.

What really enhances BOTW's sense of discovery is what the game and UI don't tell you. It doesn't fill the map with icons and you're almost never on an actual quest. You're just discovering things by exploring and looking at the actual environment instead of looking at waypoints.
 
Feb 24, 2018
5,323
Mixed feelings on this, yes to the map designs, quests, characters, plot and the content being meaningful.

No to the actual gameplay itself.

To many, Bethesda games age badly when it comes to their gameplay, requiring tons of mods to feel good nowadays, their combat is nearly always flawed and clunky and I've struggled to get into older games because of this like Morrowind, Fallout 3 and New Vegas.

Same with their stat systems, they either make them too complex or tedious or simplify them too much. New Vegas and Fallout 4 and the perfect examples of this, New Vegas feels like it isn't balanced and punishes you if you want to play anything other then it wants (the DLCs especially being bad for this) like say play a character with high speech and is Charismatic or focuses on Energy weapons etc and really punishes you and doesn't let you explore. 4 on the other hand is more balanced and makes everything from stealth, melee, gun-crazy, talkers etc gameplay styles do-able and fun, but at the cost of stripping most of the unique perks and ideas that the former game introduced which sucked, especially taking out confirmed bachelor and Chez Le Femme.

Plus, Bethesda has a nasty habit of making really bad plotholes in their game like the infamous original ending for Fallout 3 or the nonsensical Blades Ultimatum in Skyrim.

I'd rather have a ballance, the polished and fun gameplay of other open world games along with the map design and meaningful quests of a Bethesda game with an actual good central plot like an Obsidian game and a stat system that is both in-depth but not restrictive and allows for exploration with it and promote multiple ways of playing the game.
 

jmsebastian

Member
Nov 14, 2019
1,099
Can't say I agree with the OP at all. Granted, I'm not really one for open worlds in general outside of maybe Minecraft. I am much more goal oriented when I play games and Bethesda's games are extremely bad at balancing the goal of the game narrative versus the goal of the player. They create huge worlds to distract you from the only thing that's given any real importance in the game. Having played through Skyrim for the first time this year, it was amazing just how barren the world is and how little of it I ended up seeing as I tried to just stick to the main quest. The idea of wandering around until you find something fun just doesn't ring true for me at all. You could walk for 20 minutes straight in Skyrim and find nothing at all worthwhile aside from maybe a pack of wolves. It's a complete mess.

I was even more surprised by just how little I cared about any of the characters at all. Part of that is just because most of them literally have no impact. Maybe you can exchange pleasantries but that's it. They exist to make the world feel populated without them serving an other purpose. Part of it, too, is likely a result of all the characters sounding the same. It can be hard to care about random NPC number 50 when he sounds exactly the same as random NPC number 3.

Bethesda try to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to make pure sandbox games, and they want to create compelling narratives. They ultimately fail at both. There are very few sandbox games that can and have pulled this off. Majora's Mask is the only one that comes to mind and that's because it is so much smaller in scope and because it uses the truly ingenious idea of resetting time. Resetting time is critical because it gives you permission within the confines of the story to goof around and do whatever you want. And even then, you're pretty confined to one town and a couple surrounding areas. Skyrim and other Bethesda games have no such conceit. When you are being urged to go do this or that, and there is an eminent threat of the dragons destroying the world, there's no way to justify going off and exploring random caves or doing literally anything else except for the main objective.

Every Bethesda game is like that. The stories, for how important they are made to be, given how earnestly all the characters talk about it, don't really matter unless actively put your time into it as the player. You can completely ignore it for your entire game if you want, and that's not a good thing. If Bethesda wants to make truly open sandbox games, they should abandon any form of structured narrative and let the player truly go wild. If they want to create games with an interesting and compelling narrative, they need to learn how to reign it in and trim tons and tons of fat.
 

BobLoblaw

This Guy Helps
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,360
The closer we get back to Morrowind, the better. There were so many hidden things in that game that encouraged exploring. I remember once I was walking around and visited some random home and on top of one of the book cases was a crazy good sword just sitting there. Like someone didn't know what use it had so they just put it there out of the way. I miss things like that. That sword carried me for like the next 10 levels with enchantments and stuff.
 

ThisIsBlitz21

Member
Oct 22, 2018
4,663
I see "procedurally generated" and "barren" and I'm left scratching my freaking head. I can't see how it's more procedurally generated than most popular open worlds out there (Oblivion and Fallout 3 do sometimes feel haphazard in terms of the map, the two games where I can see the complaint applying to)

Skyrim, Fallout 4, and even freaking 76, are some of the densest open worlds out there in terms of locations.
 

Green

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,426
I see "procedurally generated" and "barren" and I'm left scratching my freaking head. I can't see how it's more procedurally generated than most popular open worlds out there (Oblivion and Fallout 3 do sometimes feel haphazard in terms of the map, the two games where I can see the complaint applying to)

Skyrim, Fallout 4, and even freaking 76, are some of the densest open worlds out there in terms of locations.

They used those terms early on in Oblivion dev docs because they were one of the first studio to use technologies like Speedtree for procedural foliage and forest generation when they were building the game (something like every dev does nowadays). It's not like it's randomly generating itself while you're playing. The whole thing is certainly hand crafted.
 

Mr.Deadshot

Member
Oct 27, 2017
20,285
They are the best at this. The worlds feel alive and every NPC counts.
Piranha Bytes games are the only ones that are close to this.
Some might also want to check out Enderal, a Total Conversion mod for Skyrim.
 

PanzerKraken

Member
Nov 1, 2017
15,063
This was my experience with the Bethesda Fallouts so I was wondering what I was missing. Is this a raider dungeon or a super mutant dungeon?

Again this is the bad quest design problem. What the OP is talking about is the overall world. How the NPCs are actually designed to live there, talk unique about their existence, talk to other npcs in the area with unique dialogue. How every area has actual lore built into it, often you can learn so much by observing, then clues and info left around or you can just learn by talking to people. So much world building that doesn't involve you to collect an item and read a codex entry in a menu, you learn by actually living in that world. It's not just generic NPCs who walk around and really have no connection to anything, or copy paste buildings and areas, they often put actual work and thought into every space in the games, with actual meaning and lore behind why things are as they are.

Like in Fallout, you got a big wasted area near capital building, its wrecked and why? Nothing to do with quests but through just exploration and dialogue you learn the history, the whys, and it's all just purely there to discover and not involving hand holding quests or markers telling you to go somewhere.

What is this tea shop here for? It has no quest connection or use at all, but they actually put some unique design touches in it, and even if your willing can learn more about said tea shop in the wasteland. Much of their designs often in their open worlds just aren't pointless random locations on a map, it feels like they tried to actually craft a world and that you get to be in it and part of it as you see fit cause of the more sandbox design.

But again this has nothing to do with their quest and combat design that is lacking in recent games for sure
 

fourfourfun

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,731
England
No way. Bethesda's problem with their open world design is that there's almost little connection between the gameplay and world itself. Every encounter, dungeon or what have you ends up playing out the same way as every other encounter or dungeon barring the few number of unique set pieces used by some of the higher quality quests. This makes exploring remarkably dull because no matter what you find it's going to play out in the same way.

The journey is better than the destination.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,409
Most open-world games, no matter the company, end up feeling super shallow eventually due to the fact that no matter how "immersive" it is, everything is still within the parameters of a video game and will at some point feel limited. A tighter, more linear game with less scope and more targeted/directional gameplay elements always feels better in the long run. Open-world games are always mindblowing at first but it doesn't take long before the cracks begin to show.

Having said that, the farther we move away from Ubisoft and CDPR style (every single quest, enemy, and event fits in like 3 categories and are all basically the same) the better.

Ubisoft especially *shudder*
 

Beastlove

Member
Nov 1, 2017
145
Ubisoft open world style games are cheaper and easier to make. That is why we get a new ass cred , far cry game every couple of years and 10 years for a follow up to Skyrim.
 

Kida

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,902
I've been replaying Skyrim lately and it's amazing to me that still no developer has really tried to match that style of open world. It made me appreciate why Bethesda is so reluctant to move away from their engine. For all it's shortcomings it offers a completely unique experience.

I just hope Starfield and ES:VI have better writing and quest design to complement what Bethesda does better than anybody: world-building and environmental storytelling
 
OP
OP
Plum

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,322
Again this is the bad quest design problem. What the OP is talking about is the overall world. How the NPCs are actually designed to live there, talk unique about their existence, talk to other npcs in the area with unique dialogue. How every area has actual lore built into it, often you can learn so much by observing, then clues and info left around or you can just learn by talking to people. So much world building that doesn't involve you to collect an item and read a codex entry in a menu, you learn by actually living in that world. It's not just generic NPCs who walk around and really have no connection to anything, or copy paste buildings and areas, they often put actual work and thought into every space in the games, with actual meaning and lore behind why things are as they are.

Like in Fallout, you got a big wasted area near capital building, its wrecked and why? Nothing to do with quests but through just exploration and dialogue you learn the history, the whys, and it's all just purely there to discover and not involving hand holding quests or markers telling you to go somewhere.

What is this tea shop here for? It has no quest connection or use at all, but they actually put some unique design touches in it, and even if your willing can learn more about said tea shop in the wasteland. Much of their designs often in their open worlds just aren't pointless random locations on a map, it feels like they tried to actually craft a world and that you get to be in it and part of it as you see fit cause of the more sandbox design.

But again this has nothing to do with their quest and combat design that is lacking in recent games for sure

This is a great addition to the thread! I'd add onto it with an example from New Vegas:

In the middle of the map there's a railroad that is the straightest route to New Vegas itself. However, because the game doesn't want you to go to New Vegas too early (unless you're skilled/knowledgeable enough), that railroad has a shitton of Deathclaws within it. This isn't a unique situation; games level-gate areas all the time. But it's the context that differentiates this specific example of level-gating from others.

A typical Ubisoft-styled open world game would simply tell you "the enemies in this area are too high-level." Said enemies would likely be just your typical grunts and animals but with larger health bars or whatever. If it's like the recent AC games the game might literally tell you "this is a Level 50 area," so that you know to come back later.

What New Vegas does is create a location that is contextually-justified as being overrun by some of the highest-level enemies in the game. It makes sure to show you that mining in that area disturbed a Deathclaw nest, and that there are workers who can't work because of it. They give said workers a temporary settlement to show you that the problem's gone on for a while. They make the landscape rocky and canyon-like to show the player that it would be difficult to run past. Basically, you're shown, not told, that this is a place you're not meant to go yet.

So two of the exact same gameplay scenario contextualised in wholly different ways, and that's all because of the philosophy behind both types of open worlds.

Ubisoft open world style games are cheaper and easier to make. That is why we get a new ass cred , far cry game every couple of years and 10 years for a follow up to Skyrim.

I've said this before in the thread but I think that Bethesda-styled open worlds are generally relatively middle-of-the-road in terms of production time, but it's the sheer scale of the engine and design work that needs to be laid down initially that is the primary cause of its rarity.

I mean if you really look at it Bethesda has managed to put one brand new game roughly every 4 years or so. A while, yes, but equivalent to the differences-in-development time for many other bigger developers, especially as we get into newer and bigger generations. When you look at the actual timeline of their games starting from Oblivion (i.e. the first major usage of their current ongoing engine):

2006 - Oblivion
2008 - Fallout 3 - 2 years
2011 - Skyrim - 3 years
2015 - Fallout 4 - 4 years
2018 - Fallout 76 - 3 years

Of course the gap between Fallout 4, Bethesda's last arguably 'brand new' game, and Starfield, is going to be quite significant; but so was the gap between, say, Skyward Sword and Breath of the Wild, or Infamous Second Son and Ghost of Tshushima, and so on. Similarly, I'd bet at least a tenner that the gap between Starfield and TES6 will be much shorter, primarily because all of the engine work will likely have been done by then.

None of this is mentioning any DLCs either, many of which offer decent chunks of content. Then there's New Vegas, which despite releasing buggy and very much unfinished, only really took less than 2 years to actually develop; and even that had 4 fairly sizeable DLC packs to go alongside it.
 

Giant Panda

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,689
Again this is the bad quest design problem. What the OP is talking about is the overall world. How the NPCs are actually designed to live there, talk unique about their existence, talk to other npcs in the area with unique dialogue. How every area has actual lore built into it, often you can learn so much by observing, then clues and info left around or you can just learn by talking to people. So much world building that doesn't involve you to collect an item and read a codex entry in a menu, you learn by actually living in that world. It's not just generic NPCs who walk around and really have no connection to anything, or copy paste buildings and areas, they often put actual work and thought into every space in the games, with actual meaning and lore behind why things are as they are.

Like in Fallout, you got a big wasted area near capital building, its wrecked and why? Nothing to do with quests but through just exploration and dialogue you learn the history, the whys, and it's all just purely there to discover and not involving hand holding quests or markers telling you to go somewhere.

What is this tea shop here for? It has no quest connection or use at all, but they actually put some unique design touches in it, and even if your willing can learn more about said tea shop in the wasteland. Much of their designs often in their open worlds just aren't pointless random locations on a map, it feels like they tried to actually craft a world and that you get to be in it and part of it as you see fit cause of the more sandbox design.

But again this has nothing to do with their quest and combat design that is lacking in recent games for sure
That's not a quest design problem, as the majority of the locations in something like Skyrim aren't quest related. There's little joy in exploring Skyrim's world outside of the towns because most of the locations are so bland. Sounds like a world design problem to me.
 

lorddarkflare

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,324
I'd imagine it's because their engine and tools are specifically designed for this. Josh Sawyer recently mentioned on a live stream that with any other engine, they wouldn't have been able to put the amount of content in New Vegas in the amount of time they have.

People often knock Bethesda-style games for their visuals and animations, but it's one of the trade offs they make. And honestly, they've improved with each iteration. I always thought Skyrim and Fallout 4 looked pretty good for their time. I'm really excited to see Starfield.

Yup. I realized that sometime in the past few years.

As much as I love New Vegas for what Sawyer and Obsidian did, I think at least half the reason I love New Vegas was due to a ton of the legwork Bethesda did with the engine, the assets, and VATS.

I just wish they weren't such hack writers. The main reason I stay away from their games. Open world games eventually come down to chorin', if the writing is not good enough for that, I get bored and leave around the 30hr mark.
 
OP
OP
Plum

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,322
That's not a quest design problem, as the majority of the locations in something like Skyrim aren't quest related. There's little joy in exploring Skyrim's world outside of the towns because most of the locations are so bland. Sounds like a world design problem to me.

Whilst I think a better term is helpful (it's why I used "Chunks of gameplay," in the OP), quest design doesn't just mean things directly related to defined story or side-quests in this context; it refers to the design of defined 'chunks of gameplay' that the games have. If you find those boring in Bethesda's games, fine, they are a lot of the time; however, Skyrim's dungeons are still contextualised as part of the 'world of Skyrim' in the way, say, a random bandit camp in Assassin's Creed Valhalla isn't. Even if said contextualising is boring it is still defined as something more than the literal basics of the gameplay it offers.

Even then, this thread isn't about trying to debate on how amazing you think the games themselves are with their gameplay, lore, story, etc; but on the benefits and drawbacks with how each kind of open world is designed. Going "but Skyrim is generic shit," in a thread like this would be like going "but Lords of the Fallen is generic shit," in a thread about how the OP wants more Souls-Like Action RPGs.
 

lorddarkflare

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,324
No thanks. I hate Bethesda open world design.

BoTW is what open world games should take inspiration from. Making really memorable environments that allow you to traverse and explore them freely.

Skyrim was a joke with its copy and paste dungeons and incredibly annoying environment to traverse.

Fallout series does a little bit better but I find its because of the sidequests and interaction rather than the world itself.

Morrowind was definitely impressive for its time but things went downhill from there with Elder Scrolls.

There is little in BOTW's open-world that is unique enough to school current open-world games.

The biggest thing to learn from BOTW is that more open-world games should have random puzzles strewn about.
 

GameChanger

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,935
I couldn't agree with you more OP. This is precisely the reason why I enjoyed my time with Skyrim so much more than Witcher 3. Only Bethesda game studios can make open world games like the way they do. And the do the best job with it. Breath of the Wild and RDR2 are the only other games that have incredible open worlds but those are nothing like Bethesda's open worlds. They are amazing in their own way through. I can't wait to see how From Software approaches open world design with Elden Ring.
 

Khar

Member
Oct 27, 2017
101
In Skyrim, for example, practically every cave/ dungeon/whatever will be a circuit. At the end of that circuit will always be a chest and some sort of hole to deposit you back at the beginning of the level. This makes sense from a gameplay perspective, as backtracking through the game's dungeons would be cripplingly boring given how the levels are designed in Skyrim, but at the same time this makes practically every interior in the game feel utterly mechanical, and the artifice of it all is impossible to ignore.

This did make every dungeon feel like a fairground ride I agree.

To get around the boredom of back-tracking in-game without resorting to loop dungeons or fast travel systems I wish they'd harken back to one of my favourite games of all-time, Ultima VII, and give the player a Mark and a Recall spell.

Players can then choose to Mark a beginning of a dungeon or even a player residence and Recall there at will. Ultima VII's version let you Mark and Recall to more than one location too which was just perfect.

Morrowind had Mark and Recall but it wasn't in the subsequent two games which was a pity.

I'd also much prefer in-game fast travel sequences such as cart rides between cities to supplement this rather than the map based all-encompassing fast travel used in Oblivion and Skyrim.

Down with Fast Travel, yes to Mark and Recall!
 

Deleted member 17207

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,208
There is little in BOTW's open-world that is unique enough to school current open-world games.

The biggest thing to learn from BOTW is that more open-world games should have random puzzles strewn about.
I dunno, having just dropped Ghost of Tsushima out of boredom - I'd say BOTW is still the one I can't help but compare all others to.

to respond to the thread question: because they're bad? Is that bad to say?
 

rashbeep

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,515
i like TES for the lore and world, but BGS games as rpgs are quite terrible

why it makes any sense for a character to become the arch mage while knowing only a few beginner level spells is beyond me
 

trashbandit

Member
Dec 19, 2019
3,911
This did make every dungeon feel like a fairground ride I agree.

To get around the boredom of back-tracking in-game without resorting to loop dungeons or fast travel systems I wish they'd harken back to one of my favourite games of all-time, Ultima VII, and give the player a Mark and a Recall spell.

Players can then choose to Mark a beginning of a dungeon or even a player residence and Recall there at will. Ultima VII's version let you Mark and Recall to more than one location too which was just perfect.

Morrowind had Mark and Recall but it wasn't in the subsequent two games which was a pity.

I'd also much prefer in-game fast travel sequences such as cart rides between cities to supplement this rather than the map based all-encompassing fast travel used in Oblivion and Skyrim.

Down with Fast Travel, yes to Mark and Recall!
Part of my frustration with Bethesda's design as a whole is that, to a certain extent, they can have their cake and eat it too. They can contrive means of fast travel, and eliminate backtracking through long levels, if they do the work to anchor those shortcuts within the context of the world. That's not to say that they can wave their hands and fix these issues, but for a company that takes half decade breaks between entries in the Elder Scrolls, they'd put that work in, but they haven't. They could also just spend more time making levels wider instead of longer, that way any sort of dead end isn't too far from the entrance. Maybe that would also be as apparent as their circuit design, but I think I'd be a bit less goofy than what Skyrim was like.
 

Brinbe

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
59,076
Terana
exploration is one of my favorite things to do in open world games and exactly why i've always loved TES and Fallout. I think red dead 2 scratched a lot of that itch and they hit on that formula well imo. exploration was worth-while and they laid out a plethora of cool setpieces to find.

cyberpunk has a bit of that too and for all of the criticism thrown its way, I liked what they did with Night City. There's a lot to see, do and discover in its nooks and crannies.

And I'd love to explore what they did with FO76 but not until it's single player.

Also BOTW has fantastic mechanics but the open world was barren and boring as fuck. No thanks. Like the complete opposite of what I'd want. Exploration there was a waste of time.
 
OP
OP
Plum

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,322
I dunno, having just dropped Ghost of Tsushima out of boredom - I'd say BOTW is still the one I can't help but compare all others to.

to respond to the thread question: because they're bad? Is that bad to say?

I mean, yeah if you're not gonna elaborate on it. It's like going into a thread on the benefits of Souls-like Action RPGs and saying "but they're bad."
 

lorddarkflare

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,324
I've only recently started playing Witcher 3, and one of the things I was surprised and a bit disappointed to find was that from the start the map is full of question mark spots indicating "HEY THERE'S SOMETHING HERE". Traveling off the beaten path and finding something unexpected just isn't a thing.

It has already been mentioned, but do yourself a favor and just turn those off in the menu. You don't need them and frankly, neither does the game.

You could yank 90% of the content that is represented by those icons and WItcher 3 would still be bursting out the seams with unique content.

Cyberpunk has a similar problem, but a way higher percentage of the question-mark icons are worth doing and lead to worthwhile content. And that game world is set up in a way that makes the icon barf still busy, but actually useful.
 

stuckpixel

Member
Dec 27, 2017
240
Don't like Elder Scrolls games at all. I don't have time to run around a vast wilderness looking for a game to play. Give me those sweet, sweet icons, please.

I can totally see the appeal though. Wish I had more patience and time.
 

Prine

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
15,724
The only aspect I hate, that puts me off the entire open world is level scaling, it undermines my investment into my character. I want to go back to places where I can dominate once challenging enemies, that satisfaction is why I play RPGs.
 

lorddarkflare

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,324
Don't like Elder Scrolls games at all. I don't have time to run around a vast wilderness looking for a game to play. Give me those sweet, sweet icons, please.

I can totally see the appeal though. Wish I had more patience and time.

New Vegas did a pretty damn good job of funneling you to the content without the icons. Much better than Fallout 3. And I never finished 4 to know.

That said, all the new Fallouts use their compass to point you to locations you have not been to yet, and you can take a perk to show all of these as Icons on the map.

The only aspect I hate, that puts me off the entire open world is level scaling, it undermines my investment into my character. I want to go back to places where I can dominate once challenging enemies, that satisfaction is why I play RPGs.

Level-scaling is an art, and sometimes it is not well used. Again New Vegas does a really good job with this. Like, one of the first deaths all players run into is either the Deathclaws or the Cazadores around the beginning area both funneling you to the highway.

You are scaled just enough to even out the rough edges.

In short: play more New Vegas. It should have been a template for Bethesda in terms of how to properly evolve the 'Bethesda-styled' Open-world :(
 
Last edited:

Dennis8K

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
20,161
The only aspect I hate, that puts me off the entire open world is level scaling, it undermines my investment into my character. I want to go back to places where I can dominate once challenging enemies, that satisfaction is why I play RPGs.
Level scaling is pure evil.

There is not a single game ever that has benefitted from level scaling.

It is the getting repeatedly punched in the dick of game development mistakes.
 

Igniz12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,492
I feel like Ubi's problem are entirely of their own making and not because Bethesda's game worlds are better per say. I recently got back into Fallout 4 again and Im loving it this time around but the gameplay in these games are vastly more enjoyable compared to Ubi's. The complete lack of any mechanical depth in Ubi's games and the contextual nature of the interactions makes everything game after your first one have a "been there, done that" feel.

Even in the worst Bethesda games, I still feel like there are much more systems and mechanics to explore and prod at and find something that maybe gives you more hours of fun even if you dont particularly enjoy said game all that much. Compare that to any Ubisoft open world game where I see the most the game has to offer by hour 10 and then stop coming back to it again by hour 20.

The only aspect I hate, that puts me off the entire open world is level scaling, it undermines my investment into my character. I want to go back to places where I can dominate once challenging enemies, that satisfaction is why I play RPGs.
I think they have been better at fixing that since Oblivion; iirc they now cap enemy levels at a certain point in the starting and early areas so that enemies dont keep matching yours.

But I could be wrong. Tbh that is one of the things I address with modding as soon as I can.
 

Defuser

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,346
Frankly Bethesda's way of open world only works on a certain setting that needs to have open empty spaces inbetween settlements. It won't work on dense city like watch dogs or cyberpunk.

When you make a dense city full of alive npc pedestrians, with vehicles and no unique settlements, it's either you take the ubisoft approach which faster and easier or the rockstar approach which definitely takes waaaaay longer, more expensive but deeper, it's obvious which option devs will take.

What makes bethesda approach on games like Elder Scrolls and Fallout work is that both have unique settlements with a empty space between them thats filled with enemy camps and makes you traverse mostly on foot. Elder scrolls make sense because it's medieval with large mountain/desert terrain act as empty space and fallout's post apocalyptic destroyed cities and buildings makes a good excuse for the empty space.
 
Last edited:

Hiraeth

Member
Mar 16, 2018
540
London, UK
I agree about your different types of open worlds, with most falling into 'Ubisoft' style.

One thing I'd push back on is that Rockstar really pushed the boundaries of exploration with RDR2's open world.



I think this is true of GTAIII up through to GTAV, but not so much RDR2. Red Dead 2 has amazing, natural exploration. The bulk of exploration in the game is unmotivated ... there's no "Go explore the Tall Trees" or "Investigate the Noise," it's this silent narrative woven throughout the entire world that tells a cohesive story about the world. In RDR2, if anything visually grabs your attention from afar you'll usually be rewarded by riding out and investigating it, and it's amazing how much joy you get by the small little details they sneak all throughout the world. My favorite gameplay moments in the game are these ... unprompted discoveries, like, deciding to follow the Dakota River to it's source on the furthest, farthest reach of the map. I just rode out there, there's nothing prompting you to do it but you can't help but explore it... and along the way you can stumble upon all of these untold stories about the world... former camps that were abandoned, people that took to cannibalism, and a half dozen other little unprompted stories, and then if you do ride all the way out there you find "The Hermit Woman"

0vPCr1.png


It's a woman who has become almost feral, she lives among her wild dogs who are hostile to you, in her house she has a unique gun, and also a fragment of a treasure map. You can discover this whole way of how she lives, what she eats, her motivations. And... the fragment of a treasure map leads you nowhere but it provokes your curiosity: Where is the other piece?

Well, the other piece is on almost the exact opposite side of the map, in a shack "owned by an angry isolationist." this one is more easily discovered, it's near a town and a side-mission takes place near it so it's hard to miss. You confront a man in a heavily armed shack, and rummaging through it provides the other piece of the map ... are these two related maybe? The map, when pieced together, shows a point of location that you can't even get to until after the end game, and it's a unique gun -- "Otis Miller's Revolver" -- who is one of the dozens (or hundreds) of dead/lore, lore characters in the game. Want to learn more about Otis Miller? Well, his name is carved into 'Register Rock' (a real thing reproduced in RDR2, people who moved west would carve their name/caravan into this famous rock), there's a cigarette card of him, and you can uncover other details about him throughout the game.

RDR2 weaves this narrative element around its open world. You're not explicitly encouraged to do anything, but because you're always rewarded by intriguing story elements and world-building lore, you want to explore, and then further exploration usually rewards you in small ways: A discovered treasure map (which is one of the most fun ambient side events that the game gives you, I *love* RDR's treasure maps), a unique pistol, or some other lost fragment or minor collectible... a small in-game reward for pulling on the threads of the open world.

Reinforcing all of this is how Arthur takes notes of all of these unique locations with interesting notes inscribed in your notebook, so you can go back and read them and be reminded of the unique locations.

0vPprv.png

(the notebook page for the Hermit woman, who Arthur describes "... might be a witch...")

0vfvoZ.png

(Register Rock, which has Otis Miller inscribed in it, you can discover his pistol by discovering both hermit houses, finding the map fragments in them which might link both hermits -- one being Miller's wife the other being a member of the Otis Miller gang.)

Or, if you explore just north east of Menito Glade (where the second Hermit lives), there's an ancient inscription in a large rock.

0vFgye.png

0vFZea.jpg


What does it translate to? "We arrived by boat. Beautiful land, gracious people. So we left them to live in peace"

These little mysteries are strewn throughout the world, there's nothing prompting you to discover them, but there's a handful of missions (like the serial killer ambient mission) that kinda suggests there's more to find in the world than just what you're called to explore. The serial killer ambient side quest is the first one that I was like "Jesus the care they put into this world is amazing..." and so it kinda nudges you, the player, to say ... "Hay, maybe I should explore all of these areas if these little secrets and stories are told throughout it..."

The serial killer ambient side story is probably the most well known one in the game. En route to the first town, in the wilderness, you might discover this grisly murder scene of a disembowled person hung up on a rock overlooking 'the new world.' There's a map fragment you can discover. As you go to the next town, nearby there is a similar murder scene of another murdered person with a bizarre note. Throughout the world you can find messages scratched or painted on walls which all seem to link together, before there's a third murder scene in a more remote portion of the map near a later camp. Newspaper clippings throughout the story hint towards a killer on the loose. Finally, if you stitch all the maps together you can find a key to a locked basement that you've probably passed a thousand times already and never thought much about ... and it brings you to the climax of that story. There's nothing guiding you to find these pieces, or map markers, or anything, you just discover them, and it's early enough in the game that it encourages discovery throughout all of it.

I *love* how Rockstar did this in RDR2. And there's hundreds of these little ambient stories woven throughout the whole game, and you only discover them by naturally exploring on your own. There's easily a dozen of them that are great -- the confederate soldier who runs off is another great one -- and so memorable. The biggest one that weaves in RDR2 lore and RDR1 lore is "The Strange Man." Note, this video has spoilers:



This YouTube channel is good, about ~70 videos of various mysteries in RDR2 and other Rockstar games (primarily RDR2 + RDR), but some of them are lamer than others and theyr'e all dressed up as spooky mysteries. This one is good though, especially if you played RDR1 & 2.



Great post. Stuff like this is why - in my opinion - RDR2 has the best open world to date. I've never seen something managing to be both so vast and large but also so intricately detailed at the same time. The amount of detail is staggering and the organic way the game leads you to explore things is very well done. I think this world will be hard to beat for some time in these aspects.
 
SO... Starfield
OP
OP
Plum

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,322
Just remembered this thread and figured that I'd give it an update (with the mod's blessing ofc). Why? Because I feel that Starfield has made the notion of a 'Bethesda-Styled' open world far, far more of a complicated one than it used to be, and I thought that'd be fun to discuss.

So, going by what I laid out in the OP (and your own personal feelings towards the matter), do you think that Starfield is still representative of Bethesda's typical 'style' of open world?

Personally, I don't think it is. Starfield's open world is, ostensibly, not a 'world.' It is a series of hand-crafted 'chunks' of a world alongside procedural generation parameters disguised as planets. There are some elements of their older titles there; in some instances, like with the cities' focus on using diegetic maps, those elements of their classical design are heightened. However, outside of that, it's hard to say that much of what I loved about their style is still there.

Biggest example of this is how 'space' (pun unintended) isn't really taken into account anymore due to the sheer scale needed to make the game's galaxy work. I can land on the arse-end of the most barren inhospitable moon, and 500ft away is a populated settlement of mercenaries, one that has a good chance of being very similar to one I had found on another planet. Jemison, the United Colonies' home planet, has one major settlement to call its own; the entirety of the rest of the planet is barren wasteland populated by the occasional outpost. Within New Atlantis, there are now entire tower blocks which consist of just a lobby and a few rooms. Of course older titles had these location incongruities as well (e.g. Solitude, Skyrim's capital, being two streets), but the spaces themselves still had a sense of plausible deniability that helps one overlook their artificiality.

Then, in terms of exploration, it simply isn't your main method of interaction any more. The galaxy is too sizeable for you to stumble upon interesting things naturally, so you're far more likely to only go where the game's hints and objectives tell you to go. Then, of course, there's the 'space' part of the space game, the vast nothingness that creates inherent disconnects between places. Where before Akila and New Atlantis might have been two parts of the same whole, now they are simply two parts of a menu system. You're not 'wandering' this world, you are teleporting from place to place within it. Which is a shame, because I don't personally think that a 'space game' and a 'Bethesda-styled open world' are incongruous; but I think that Bethesda themselves didn't limit themselves to a point where they could marry the two well.

Of course if you disagree with this then feel free to post about why! This is a really interesting topic to me and I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on it :)
 

Servbot24

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
43,377
I don't get the map examples on the OP. The Fallout map is just a pile of icons, same as the Spider-Man map.
 

LazyGradient

Member
Nov 9, 2020
442
Starfield reminds me a lot of Daggerfall, I think it's a good way when using narrative to drive your game but it's less fun in the way the newer ES and Fallout titles reward exploration.
 

RPGam3r

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,661
I don't think Stafield does what TES or Fallout do. It's got the amusement park rides but lacks the amusement park. It's just endless wasteland (ironically not in a good way like Fallout). There's no connective tissue.

For example, it's unrealistic that a farm outside of a giant city wouldn't have a road that leads to it. Or roads going anywhere for that matter. If you don't like roads then think walkways or paths. It's like these folks never leave the city walls.

One of the great things about Bethesda games is walking along the road, seeing a path. Maybe it leads to some marked location, maybe it doesn't, maybe it's some unmarked location that has a cool story to tell or even a dumb visual easter egg. And there's zero of this in Starfield.

I love Starfield, but I have a few big dislikes and this is one of them. I would rather have had a Starfield where there were only 4-5 planets that had way more realistic cities and surrounding areas.
 

ragolliangatan

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Aug 31, 2019
4,539
I think for me with the return to procedural generation as the main tool for map generation (for necessity in this case) shows how strong their world building has been in the past. Their worlds have always been the strenght of their games, and that's been reflected in their past games by Todd Howard talking about how the world is the main character of their games.

In Starfield a big part of the issue is that the worlds don't feel meaningful in the way they were in the past, there's nothing for you to remember or use as landmarks to help ground you in them- and that's clearly by choice but it weakens what they've been so strong at. I expect for ES6 we'll return to that more traditional approach to world building.

For me personally I think alongside Rockstar BGS builds the most memorable game world.